Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 183

Thread: Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

  1. #151
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    Are you honestly pretending this is equivalent to run of the mill prejudice? Did you miss 9.11 or the war we are in and the obvious scars it created?
    I don't believe 9/11 or our wars are proper justification to trash our resolve to uphold personal freedom and liberty at home. Surely we've acted in this way in the past, particularly with with Japanese-Americans during WW II; but it wasn't just action. And we do so now as well, but it doesn't make just action. We shouldn't abandon our commitment to freedom and liberty, if anything we should strengthen ourselves to protect and proliferate them.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #152
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,968

    Re: Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It's easy. You don't want certain folk in some place. Certain folk buy a piece of land and do something that is well within their rights to do. You either make it completely hostile so that they cannot practice their rights, or you use backdoor methods to prevent their exercise of their rights. There's always going to be some amount of bitching or protest, fine. But there's nothing one can legitimately do until the original person does something which infringes upon the rights of others. Thus saying that society has values and if someone doesn't hold those values it's fine to do whatever it takes to ensure said person doesn't do anything against those values even if what that person wanted to do was completely within their rights to do.
    So essentially you believe that someone enacting their rights to property and religion should infringe on other peoples rights to assembly and speech?

    As long as I make it hostile in a LEGAL way I'm well within my rights and its perfectly acceptable. To say that its not would be infringing upon MY rights of speech.

    A good example of such is the initial use of the marriage license, which was created to prevent interracial marriage. Society had "values", these other folk wanted to marry but society didn't want them to marry. So they created instead, and enforced through government force, a system which would actively prevent the act; in this case interracial marriage. It was an unjust act and one of tyranny against the individual as it, without warrant or charge or proof acted against the free exercise of someone's rights.
    Again, this is speaking of a specific LAW, IE marriage licenses.

    I've said SPECIFICALLY that I do not want any kind of legal/governmental action against them.

    Jallman has been saying he doesn't think legal/governmental action should be taken against them.

    So who are you arguing against exactly if your interpretation of "societal and political intimidation" is involving LEGAL action when we're not suggesting that such should be used?

    I am fully within my rights of Free Speech to speak badly about the place. I'm freely within my rights of free speech to incourage people not to partake in their business. I'm freely within my rights of assembly and free speech to protest or organize a protest as long as its in a lawful location and done in a lawful way. I'm freely within my rights to advertise against them. I'm freely within my rights to write city councilmen or mayors or senators or congressmen and urge them to urge those individuals to reconsider where they build their mosque. I'm fully within my rights to boycott any businesses that support them. I'm fully within my rights to write editorials or go onto television and speak negatively about them.

    Are those things societal and/or political intimidation?

  3. #153
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    So essentially you believe that someone enacting their rights to property and religion should infringe on other peoples rights to assembly and speech?

    As long as I make it hostile in a LEGAL way I'm well within my rights and its perfectly acceptable. To say that its not would be infringing upon MY rights of speech.
    Not fully. Certainly to extent that it would take place on their specific property, but after than there's not much you can do about people bitching either. But bitching and doing are two different things. If we're just bitching about the mosque, that's one thing. But if we move in such a way as to act through courts or other means which actually prevent the exercise of a right, then we've gone one toke over the line.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Again, this is speaking of a specific LAW, IE marriage licenses.

    I've said SPECIFICALLY that I do not want any kind of legal/governmental action against them.

    Jallman has been saying he doesn't think legal/governmental action should be taken against them.

    So who are you arguing against exactly if your interpretation of "societal and political intimidation" is involving LEGAL action when we're not suggesting that such should be used?
    You wanted an example of societal intimidation which manifested itself against the rights and liberties of the individual, and I have done just that.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #154
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,968

    Re: Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Not fully. Certainly to extent that it would take place on their specific property, but after than there's not much you can do about people bitching either. But bitching and doing are two different things. If we're just bitching about the mosque, that's one thing. But if we move in such a way as to act through courts or other means which actually prevent the exercise of a right, then we've gone one toke over the line.
    Right.

    I ask again.

    Who in this thread is advocating for going through the courts or other legal or legislative means?

    Specifically quote where JALLMAN is suggesting to do that, since you keep calling him a fascist that is pushing for social and political intimidation.

    You wanted an example of societal intimidation which manifested itself against the rights and liberties of the individual, and I have done just that.
    And I'm glad you gave it. It just further showed me that my confusion as to why you kept accusing people in this thread of pushing for such things was reasonable to have.

  5. #155
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Right.

    I ask again.

    Who in this thread is advocating for going through the courts or other legal or legislative means?

    Specifically quote where JALLMAN is suggesting to do that, since you keep calling him a fascist that is pushing for social and political intimidation.
    Actually all that occurred before Jallman, he had merely butted in. There were others who said that there are social and political pressures which can be placed upon people's exercise of their rights should that exercise not line up with the "values" of the society around them and that no proof of anything is necessary to apply these pressures. And while it's physically possible, it is neither a justifiable or just action. The term fascist first popped up in response to not Jallman asking where the Constitution allows anyone to set up shop where ever they want. To which I responded that the Constitution does not limit the People, but rather the government and I quested why that has to be continually explained. Furthermore, in the context of the discussion we were specifically speaking of legally purchased land wherein the proposed building violated no such zoning laws or anything else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    And I'm glad you gave it. It just further showed me that my confusion as to why you kept accusing people in this thread of pushing for such things was reasonable to have.
    People can be outraged as much as they want, protest as much as they want. However, they cannot use government against the free exercise of rights without due cause; and due cause does not exist in this specific case. You may write your Congressman as much as you want, but that Congressman can't legitimately or justly do anything about it; not if all the rules have been followed which I believe was on of the working assumptions of the debate.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  6. #156
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:54 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,312
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

    So as best I can tell these people should not build a mosque/community center, because other people should not be responsible for their own stupid emotional reactions. That really is a brilliant argument, almost as brilliant as building a mosque is a super sekret plot to erect a monument to their own country being attacked.

    When all your arguments against something are that people will react with a lack of emotional maturity, your arguments probably are not all that good.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #157
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:12 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,194

    Re: Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No, people building a muslim community center/mosque in extremely close vicinity of a place that was destroyed by muslim extremists in an attack backed by a muslim extremist in which people come to visit are, in my opinion, tactless douchebags.

    As I've explained in another thread. Its not JUST people who equate Islam with Terrorism Its about emotional responses, many of which are natural.
    Oftentimes, emotions are illogical. I don't deny that people will react emotionally. It doesn't make it logical in their reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    When I say "Fireman" I don't have a giant swelling of pride and admiration, I just think of the guys that put out fires. When I say "Fireman and WTC" I immediately have an uplifting feeling and have the notion of heroism in my head as those two triggers bring me back to the day of 9/11. If I saw a giant fire truck monument with a statue of a fireman walking out of rubble 2 blocks from Ground Zero those two triggers (Being near Ground Zero and seeing the fireman monument) would summon forth that similar emotion.

    Likewise when I say "Islam" or "Muslim" I don't suddenly have anger or hatred or think "TERRORISTS!". When I say "Islam and the WTC" then yes, I do have sudden feelings of anger and sadness as those two words act as triggers against each other to cause me to recall emotions from that specific day. If I see a giant building dedicated to Islam while heading or leaving hte WTC then again, those two triggers (being near ground Zero and seeing a big islamic center) would summon forth that similar emotion.

    While I agree the notion of thinking all muslims are terrorist is ridiculous, I find it also absolutely ridiculous to suggest that somehow its impossible or unreasonable to have negative emotions or negative views or negative thoughts when you combine both the notion of Islam with the time/place of Ground Zero. I find it COMPLETELY absurd that people are acting like its unreasonable to even ATTACH Islam to 9/11, as if it had nothing to do with it.
    Okay, if the words are next to each other that would be like the mosque being across the street from ground zero. We could say that two blocks away is like the two words being in the same sentence. Ex.: Not all Muslims attacked the World Trade Center.

    Can the words be in the same paragraph (city or burrough), same chapter (state), or book (country)?

    Yes, it is a knee jerk (emotional) reaction to not like this. But no one can say how close or how soon is acceptable. Some people are more emotional than others.

    Emotion ignores logic many times. That is what is happening when people ignore context. Some people read their own context into it to validate their emotions. It's not any more absurd to attach Islam to 9/11 than attaching child sex abuse and Catholicism. The absurdity comes with how it is attached and for what reasons it is being attached.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Show me the people in this thread saying all Muslims are Terrorists?

    All Japanese people didn't believe that Pearl Harbor needed to happen, I wouldn't want a Japanese Culture Center opening up right outside the Arizona 10 years after Pearl Harbor either.
    People's emotions are triggered because of the association of Islam and 9/11. It is not logical though.

    A is a terrorist
    A is Muslim
    Muslims are terrorists.

    Logic tells us that this is not true though. You acknowledge this. We both know that it was radical Islam that is to be blamed for 9/11. If this community center/mosque is linked to the radical Islam that attacked us, reality would validate those emotions as correct. Otherwise, it's a rash generalization or stereotype that is incorrectly applied.

    We were at war with Japan. We are not at war with Islam.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    They were attacked by a nation who was not ruled by a democratically elected head of state and whose people were from a culture of simply doing what their leaders told them. One could equate that to the rather extremely tacit response by the Muslim world in regards to terrorist attacks, such as disagreeing with the attacks on civilians but turning around and stating they support the goals and endeavors of the groups that conduct said attacks. Joe Random Japanese guy had no more hand or affect in regards to the attacking of Pearl Harbor then these people building the Mosque did, but it wouldn't make it any less douchey.
    Islam is not a democracy either. Nobody voted for the terrorists. The terrorists didn't force to whole Muslim community to go to war with us. These religious wackos used Islam to achieve their own ends, this doesn't mean that Islam is to blame. We were at war with all of Japan. We are not at war with all of Islam. I understand why you feel like they are pouring salt in the wounds of Americans, but I think it's incorrect as they have stated good intentions and I think the best people could do is encourage them to donate to a 9/11 victims, firefighter/police, or veterans charity as an act showing those good intentions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    As I've said, my stance is one of four things:

    1. Douchebags that know its going to piss people off and don't care, and who are throwing the "out reach" comments out as an abject lie and bull****ting. Mind you, no one says its illegal to be a douche bag.
    2. Complete idiots that realize this is going to piss people off, specifically those that are anywhere from relatively neutral to full out negative on Islam, but still build it while telling us that its to "Build bridges" and be "out reach". Meaning they're attempting to "Reach out" to people by doing something right off the bat that's going to piss them off and start them on a worse footing
    3. Absolute dullards who are more oblivious than Mr. Magoo and somehow had absolutely zero clue what so ever that this response would happen, and then IS happening, and are continuing on with the project thinking that no one is bothered or upset about it and it will work wonders in "out reach" and "building bridges".

    So, please, excuse me and let me restate my comment earlier. They're not douche bags. They may be douche bags, idiots, or dullards...which of those three, I'm sure. What I do know however without a doubt is they severely lack tact.
    What's number four?

    Black people knew it would piss off white people when they were the first ones to breach a homogeneous neighborhood. People learned that it wasn't a bad thing generally. I see this as an innocent person/group who will not be bullied by people who are acting emotionally. If it turns out they are not innocent, then all bets are off.

    I think this could work out to our benefit. We could throw this in the face of Islamic countries that are not religiously tolerant. We truly are the home of the free.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  8. #158
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    And there are social values that need to be enforced. Grow a pair, grow up, and get over it. The mosque in that location is inflammatory and a provocation to our sense of national pride. Sorry your spine doesn't congeal enough to lead you to take exception to the insult.

    And there's nothing illegal about using the court system to delay said insult.
    Let's put these comments in a different light:

    "And there are social values that need to be enforced. Grow a pair, grow up, and get over it. Black people buying a house in that location is inflammatory and a provocation to our sense of community pride."

    No real difference between the two sentiments. In fact, I once heard my parents say something very similar to that last statement.

    p.s. Wow, IT. Great minds think alike.
    Last edited by Catz Part Deux; 07-20-10 at 07:58 PM.

  9. #159
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,968

    Re: Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    Oftentimes, emotions are illogical. I don't deny that people will react emotionally. It doesn't make it logical in their reasoning.
    Never said that emotions can't be illogical.

    Okay, if the words are next to each other that would be like the mosque being across the street from ground zero. We could say that two blocks away is like the two words being in the same sentence. Ex.: Not all Muslims attacked the World Trade Center.
    Yes, "Not all muslims attacked the world trade center", if told to me as I'm looking at ground zero, would still likely illicit a significantly negative response and emotion from me because you're sitting there at the site of it equivocating in an attempt to seemingly downplay or excuse what happened there. My issue with you, and more importantly many others in this thread, is that you run so far the opposite direction that you immediately give the impression that rather than "MUSLIMS = TERRORIST" that "Islam isn't related at all to 9/11" which is an attitude I find as reprehensible and disgusting as the former.

    Can the words be in the same paragraph (city or burrough), same chapter (state), or book (country)?
    For me personally, I've already stated where I think would've been a good outer limit going the same direction they went (To the north of ground zero) and why. I imagine that with even a relatively small amount of focus grouping they could've discovered a decent equilibrium where the amount of those within the group needing "outreach" (IE those with a neutral to bad view of Islam) were okay with it rather than upset about it.

    Yes, it is a knee jerk (emotional) reaction to not like this. But no one can say how close or how soon is acceptable. Some people are more emotional than others.
    No one on a random message board can say exactly. With a little bit of effort however a reasonable guess could likely have been made if their HONEST about their attempts for outreach and aren't idiots or oblivious.

    Emotion ignores logic many times. That is what is happening when people ignore context. Some people read their own context into it to validate their emotions. It's not any more absurd to attach Islam to 9/11 than attaching child sex abuse and Catholicism. The absurdity comes with how it is attached and for what reasons it is being attached.
    Actually it is, and this is the most ridiculous thing I continually find.

    How many Catholic Priests have molested children because they believe its gods will?

    How many Catholic Priests have molested children because they believed it would get them into heaven?

    How many Catholic Priests have molested children because they believe its their religious duty to do so?

    How many Catholic Priests have molested children because they have been lead to believe it is the holy thing to do by another religious zealot above them that suggests that's the correct course of action because of their belief in god?

    You're going to complain about the Japan comparison and then throw that **** out?

    And you know what, even with that in mind and accepting your generalized scenario, if somehow a catholic priest that was no longer allowed to lead a church and was bat**** insane enough to think it was gods will to molest little boys moved into a ctiy and started kidnapping and raping a dozen little boys before finding caught, I would say that it'd be a tactless douchy act to buy up the land he used for his molestation house and build a catholic church right there claiming its for "outreach".

    People's emotions are triggered because of the association of Islam and 9/11. It is not logical though.
    Actually, its perfectly logical to have emotions triggered because of the association of Islam and 9/11.

    Muslims, on the order of another Muslim, attacked the United States in part due to their hatred for its sinful ways and its encroachment into holy lands and for its status as the infidel and great satan (all based in their belief in their religion) by flying planes into the World Trade Center, an act they readily embraced and did because of the RELIGIOUS belief through Islam that in dying a martyr they would go on to an afterlife of paradise.

    Islam was a key factor in 9/11. There is no if and's or but's about it. You can equivocate it all you want. You can excuse it all you want. You can wave your hands and act like its not there all you want. You can throw "Extremists" or "radical" or "Fringe" all you want. The fact, pure, bloody, simple, indisputable fact is ISLAM was DIRECTLY tied to 9/11 and the reason 3,000 people died.

    Your, and others, disgusting continual attempt to obfuscate that fact and belittle that fact and ignore that fact all in an effort to be political correct or god forbid agree in some way shape or form with the crazies from the other side is as disgusting, distasteful, and pathetic as those crazies on the other side that think "OMG ISLAM = TERRORIST."

    Now if you said "its an illogical for negative emotions to trigger when someone hears the word Islam" then I'd have less of an issue, but its your bull**** attempt at suggesting its illogical to link ISLAM and 9/11, TOGETHER, to having a negative emotional response.

    A is a terrorist
    A is Muslim
    Muslims are terrorists.
    No.

    A is terrorist
    A is muslim
    A flew into the World Trade Center
    MUSLIM terrorists flew into the World Trade Center

    You kindly just ignored the second part of the equation I kept stating, which was the location along with "muslim" and "terrorism"

    Logic tells us that this is not true though. You acknowledge this. We both know that it was radical Islam that is to be blamed for 9/11. If this community center/mosque is linked to the radical Islam that attacked us, reality would validate those emotions as correct. Otherwise, it's a rash generalization or stereotype that is incorrectly applied.
    Well yeah, because you left out half of the equation because it didn't suit your little scenario. Logic tells us its perfectly true to equate Islam to terrorism when thinking about the World Trade Center as it is an example of an ISLAMIC terrorist attack. Its illogical to equate Islam to Terrorism in a generalized sense.

    We were at war with Japan. We are not at war with Islam.
    Correct, we are at war with Terrorism, most specifically at this point ISLAMIC terrorism.

    Also, we still are CURRENTLY at war with Terrorists...10 years after Pearl Harbor we were NOT at war with Japan.

    Islam is not a democracy either. Nobody voted for the terrorists. The terrorists didn't force to whole Muslim community to go to war with us.
    And yet the majority of the Muslim world agree's with the Terrorists purposes, goals, and efforts if not their methods.

    These religious wackos used Islam to achieve their own ends, this doesn't mean that Islam is to blame.
    It also doesn't mean it should be completely ignored and erased from the equation as if the GIGANTIC relationship with regards to it just didn't exist.

    but I think it's incorrect as they have stated good intentions and I think the best people could do is encourage them to donate to a 9/11 victims, firefighter/police, or veterans charity as an act showing those good intentions.
    Which as I said, I firmly believe are either absolute BULL**** or they are the either the stupidest or most obtuse people in the world.

    If you want to do outreach to battered women your first act is not wearing a "Wanna ****" T-shirt.

    If you want to do outreach to alcoholics you do not walk around smelling of beer and holding a Jack Daniels bottle.

    If you want to do outreach to the poor you don't begin by charging a $10 entry fee to your food shelter.

    If the U.S. wanted to "build bridges" back to the Japanese after WWII by offering employment opportunities to them you wouldn't advertise it going "Calling our Japs! Come to our Job Fair Saturday. You won't believe your slanty eyes at the opportunities you'll see!"

    If Christians want to "build bridges" to the Gay Community they wouldn't host a meet and greet at a Anti-Gay Marriage rally.

    and on and on.

    When the very location that your "outreach" is going to occur makes neutral feeling people annoyed, moderately uneasy feeling people upset, and your negative feeling people angry it immediately calls into question either your honesty in wanting "outreach" or your intelligence in your chosen location or how you went about choosing it. When the only people who have a majority of individuals that don't care that you're building it where it is are ones who already have a slightly positive to completely positive view of Islam to begin with then you're doing something wrong, because you don't "Build Bridges" or "Reach Out" to people who are already with you.

    What's number four?
    LOL, was going to be dishonest but I realized dishonest rolled in with douche bag

    Black people knew it would piss off white people when they were the first ones to breach a homogeneous neighborhood. People learned that it wasn't a bad thing generally. I see this as an innocent person/group who will not be bullied by people who are acting emotionally. If it turns out they are not innocent, then all bets are off.
    Except Black People didn't attempt to breach a homogenous neighborhood stating its intent was for "Out Reach" or to "Mend Fences". They also didn't make a giant scene about the effort by trying to move into the most white bread neighborhood in say Birmingham Alabama either.

    I think this could work out to our benefit. We could throw this in the face of Islamic countries that are not religiously tolerant. We truly are the home of the free.
    I think the opposite. If their cause is REALLY about outreach they're hurting their cause. I have no seen a single solitary individual that had a moderately negative to negative view of Islam here or elsewhere that has thought "This is a really good idea" or "I want to go there" or "I'll give it a shot". Indeed, I've seen people with relatively neutral views of Islam as a whole going "This actually annoys me" or "I disagree with this" or "Their attitude in doing it there assures I'll never go". The ONLY people I've seen that like this are people with a relatively moderately positive to positive view of Islam, in which case...WHAT ****ING GOOD IS THAT DOING? What "outreach" is it doing to make those that already like you, like you? To me this does nothing but creates a net negative, pissing more people off that were on the fence rather than bringing them in.

    As I said on another thread. If they would've done this in Time Square, or a metro stop or so away, or pretty much ANYWHERE else in New York that was at least close to a touresty location I'd probably be apt to stop in there, see what they had, and listen to their purpose a bit and if I liked it spread the words to others I knew visiting New York. However with their douchebaggery in regards to the location I will never, at all, think of even stepping foot in the place. This is one relatively neutral person that their tactless asses has completely turned off and have assured that rather than "building bridges" they burnt what little they possibly could've used to have me walk over. And I have no doubt I'm far from alone.

    As I've said, they either known damn well its going to piss people off and are doing it anyways in which case they are completely without tact....or their oblivious to this in which case I'm not rewarding their stupidity...or they've flat out lied to people regarding this outreach bull**** (the option I actually think is true) in which case I'm definitely not rewarding dishonesty by visiting or supporting it.

  10. #160
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:12 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,194

    Re: Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Yes, "Not all muslims attacked the world trade center", if told to me as I'm looking at ground zero, would still likely illicit a significantly negative response and emotion from me because you're sitting there at the site of it equivocating in an attempt to seemingly downplay or excuse what happened there. My issue with you, and more importantly many others in this thread, is that you run so far the opposite direction that you immediately give the impression that rather than "MUSLIMS = TERRORIST" that "Islam isn't related at all to 9/11" which is an attitude I find as reprehensible and disgusting as the former.
    I admitted that the terrorists were Muslims. It's not equivocation to say that they were a fringe element of the religion. There are something like 1.5 Billion Muslims on the planet. If 10% of them were terrorists we would be screwed or committing genocide. You are the one who is equating non-terrorist Muslims with terrorists simply because they are too close to Ground Zero. They probably don't teach the same brand of Islam as the terrorists followed. If this was an Islam problem, we'd see more attacks than we could handle, especially if it was Islam in America.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No one on a random message board can say exactly. With a little bit of effort however a reasonable guess could likely have been made if their HONEST about their attempts for outreach and aren't idiots or oblivious.
    No one anywhere can say exactly, that's my point. Everyone's mileage varies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Actually it is, and this is the most ridiculous thing I continually find.

    How many Catholic Priests have molested children because they believe its gods will?

    How many Catholic Priests have molested children because they believed it would get them into heaven?

    How many Catholic Priests have molested children because they believe its their religious duty to do so?

    How many Catholic Priests have molested children because they have been lead to believe it is the holy thing to do by another religious zealot above them that suggests that's the correct course of action because of their belief in god?

    You're going to complain about the Japan comparison and then throw that **** out?
    I'm not saying it's legitimate. Both are crap. It's attributing the actions of a few to the whole group.

    It's calling the Tea Party racist because of a few signs.

    It's saying Republicans are closet homosexuals.

    It's saying that the NFL/NBA is full of murderers and drug users.

    Yes, the terrorists were manipulated by people teaching a perverse version of Islam that the rest of the Muslim world obviously doesn't adhere to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    And you know what, even with that in mind and accepting your generalized scenario, if somehow a catholic priest that was no longer allowed to lead a church and was bat**** insane enough to think it was gods will to molest little boys moved into a ctiy and started kidnapping and raping a dozen little boys before finding caught, I would say that it'd be a tactless douchy act to buy up the land he used for his molestation house and build a catholic church right there claiming its for "outreach".
    How about two city blocks away?

    It's illogical for something good to be bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Actually, its perfectly logical to have emotions triggered because of the association of Islam and 9/11.

    Muslims, on the order of another Muslim, attacked the United States in part due to their hatred for its sinful ways and its encroachment into holy lands and for its status as the infidel and great satan (all based in their belief in their religion) by flying planes into the World Trade Center, an act they readily embraced and did because of the RELIGIOUS belief through Islam that in dying a martyr they would go on to an afterlife of paradise.

    Islam was a key factor in 9/11. There is no if and's or but's about it. You can equivocate it all you want. You can excuse it all you want. You can wave your hands and act like its not there all you want. You can throw "Extremists" or "radical" or "Fringe" all you want. The fact, pure, bloody, simple, indisputable fact is ISLAM was DIRECTLY tied to 9/11 and the reason 3,000 people died.
    I'm not waving my hands. I'm not equivocating. I'm not acting like there isn't a link. I don't expect this community center/mosque to behave as if they are guilty for something they didn't do. Two blocks away you will probably barely be able to see it if at all from the WTC site. The WTC site will be unaffected by the community center/mosque.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Your, and others, disgusting continual attempt to obfuscate that fact and belittle that fact and ignore that fact all in an effort to be political correct or god forbid agree in some way shape or form with the crazies from the other side is as disgusting, distasteful, and pathetic as those crazies on the other side that think "OMG ISLAM = TERRORIST."
    C'mon man, I don't say that churches can't be built withing 2000 feet of a school or day care center because crazy people kill their children and claim "God/Jesus told me to." You think they are being rude because in many people's minds Muslims turn into terrorists if they get too close to the WTC. Essentially that's your argument. Or you are making excuses for people because it's the reality that many people are ethnocentric and xenophobic. "They aren't like us and don't belong here." They are Americans I presume. They have every right to be there as you or I. Some people aren't more American than others. Until we put all Muslims in internment camps, imprison them, or deport them, they are free. It wasn't just Christian Americans that were killed on 9/11. Muslims lost innocent people there too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Now if you said "its an illogical for negative emotions to trigger when someone hears the word Islam" then I'd have less of an issue, but its your bull**** attempt at suggesting its illogical to link ISLAM and 9/11, TOGETHER, to having a negative emotional response.
    It's illogical to link Mainstream American Islam (which is what is in question) with 9/11. It's intellectually lazy to link all of Islam with the acts of a few.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No.

    A is terrorist
    A is muslim
    A flew into the World Trade Center
    MUSLIM terrorists flew into the World Trade Center

    You kindly just ignored the second part of the equation I kept stating, which was the location along with "muslim" and "terrorism"



    Well yeah, because you left out half of the equation because it didn't suit your little scenario. Logic tells us its perfectly true to equate Islam to terrorism when thinking about the World Trade Center as it is an example of an ISLAMIC terrorist attack. Its illogical to equate Islam to Terrorism in a generalized sense.
    Your logic is equating any Islam with terrorism when thinking about the WTC. That is the flaw. The attackers were all Muslim, but it wasn't a mainstream Muslim attack. It was radical Islam. You are leaving out half of the equation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Correct, we are at war with Terrorism, most specifically at this point ISLAMIC terrorism.
    Most specifically would be radical Islamic terrorism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Also, we still are CURRENTLY at war with Terrorists...10 years after Pearl Harbor we were NOT at war with Japan.
    And this community center/mosque is not for terrorists.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    And yet the majority of the Muslim world agree's with the Terrorists purposes, goals, and efforts if not their methods.
    I don't blame them for wanting us out of their business. I would want them out of our business if the roles were reversed. I'm not sure I agree about all the goals. But this discussion is about American Muslims. I don't think the majority of them agreed with the 9/11 attacks. It's okay if they want us to leave the Middle East though. I don't think we are getting the return on our investment that we hoped for.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    It also doesn't mean it should be completely ignored and erased from the equation as if the GIGANTIC relationship with regards to it just didn't exist.
    Gigantic? Only if you ignore that it was radical Muslims, not mainstream.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Which as I said, I firmly believe are either absolute BULL**** or they are the either the stupidest or most obtuse people in the world.


    When the very location that your "outreach" is going to occur makes neutral feeling people annoyed, moderately uneasy feeling people upset, and your negative feeling people angry it immediately calls into question either your honesty in wanting "outreach" or your intelligence in your chosen location or how you went about choosing it. When the only people who have a majority of individuals that don't care that you're building it where it is are ones who already have a slightly positive to completely positive view of Islam to begin with then you're doing something wrong, because you don't "Build Bridges" or "Reach Out" to people who are already with you.
    I don't think that the people who are really upset by this would come around if they gave out money and American flags.

    I'm not going to break down the group of straw men, but that's what they are.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Except Black People didn't attempt to breach a homogenous neighborhood stating its intent was for "Out Reach" or to "Mend Fences". They also didn't make a giant scene about the effort by trying to move into the most white bread neighborhood in say Birmingham Alabama either.
    That's rich. What was the Black family's stated intent?

    I don't think it was the Black family or the Muslims making a giant scene about this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I think the opposite. If their cause is REALLY about outreach they're hurting their cause. I have no seen a single solitary individual that had a moderately negative to negative view of Islam here or elsewhere that has thought "This is a really good idea" or "I want to go there" or "I'll give it a shot". Indeed, I've seen people with relatively neutral views of Islam as a whole going "This actually annoys me" or "I disagree with this" or "Their attitude in doing it there assures I'll never go". The ONLY people I've seen that like this are people with a relatively moderately positive to positive view of Islam, in which case...WHAT ****ING GOOD IS THAT DOING? What "outreach" is it doing to make those that already like you, like you? To me this does nothing but creates a net negative, pissing more people off that were on the fence rather than bringing them in.

    As I said on another thread. If they would've done this in Time Square, or a metro stop or so away, or pretty much ANYWHERE else in New York that was at least close to a touresty location I'd probably be apt to stop in there, see what they had, and listen to their purpose a bit and if I liked it spread the words to others I knew visiting New York. However with their douchebaggery in regards to the location I will never, at all, think of even stepping foot in the place. This is one relatively neutral person that their tactless asses has completely turned off and have assured that rather than "building bridges" they burnt what little they possibly could've used to have me walk over. And I have no doubt I'm far from alone.

    As I've said, they either known damn well its going to piss people off and are doing it anyways in which case they are completely without tact....or their oblivious to this in which case I'm not rewarding their stupidity...or they've flat out lied to people regarding this outreach bull**** (the option I actually think is true) in which case I'm definitely not rewarding dishonesty by visiting or supporting it.
    I disagree. I don't think most people who are upset about this are reachable. Only in time when people see that they are a good neighbor will fences be mended and people will be more receptive.

    If given the chance, I probably wouldn't check the place out no matter where it was unless I really had to go to the bathroom.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •