The last refuge of a liberal

[admiralsnackbar]

Quick, Darren -- make sure to use a little ad hominem smoke-screen to divert from defending your position. Nobody will expect such a clever move!

[LnGrrrR]

Wake me up when any of those groups murder 3000 people.

What does that have to do with the faulty logic of your statement?

[LnGrrrR]

Try relevance

Shorter DarrinS: I believe that all Muslims that do not apologize for the actions of someone that may follow a bastardized version of the religion they follow are possible terrorists.

Even shorter DarrinS: I'm a racist pussy.

[LnGrrrR]

I will say though DarrinS, you're a great example of how one can dehumanize a certain segment of the population in order to justify their own feelings of fear.

[ChumpDumper]

Has DarrinS apologized for the Oklahoma City bombing yet?

[admiralsnackbar]

Has DarrinS apologized for the Oklahoma City bombing yet?

They aren't relevant since less than 3k people died.

[Spurminator]

Wait, did DarrinS just ask about a Muslim recall? :lmao

[DarrinS]

They aren't relevant since less than 3k people died.





The Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote a letter to them claiming to be an agnostic and that he did not believe in a hell.[81][82] McVeigh once said that he believed the universe was guided by natural law, energized by some universal higher power that showed each person right from wrong if they paid attention to what was going on inside them. He had also said, "Science is my religion."[83]







“In his letter, McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would "improvise, adapt and overcome", if it turned out there was an afterlife. "If I'm going to hell," he wrote, "I'm gonna have a lot of company."

[ChumpDumper]

Islamophobia: moving forward.

[AFBlue]

Darrin,

Still haven't responded on the Christians that think it's morally acceptable to murder Abortion doctors.

Should I think that all Christians are a certain way because a fringe group think it's morally acceptable to take another's life for a certain cause?

[ChumpDumper]

Did DarrinS apologize for Abu Ghraib?

My Lai?

Abortion clinic bombings?

[LnGrrrR]

Hitler killed thousands of Jews during WWII. Has DarrinS apologized to Jewish people on behalf of all white people yet? If not, I'll just have to assume he secretly wants to murder and/or denigrate Jews.

[LnGrrrR]

Is DarrinS afraid of atheists now too? I guess we're all just latent terrorists as well.

[DarrinS]

Darrin,

Still haven't responded on the Christians that think it's morally acceptable to murder Abortion doctors.

Should I think that all Christians are a certain way because a fringe group think it's morally acceptable to take another's life for a certain cause?


I think those people tend to be lone nuts. A noteable difference between anti-abortion nuts and hardcore Islamists is that the anti-abortion nut tries to take out the person(s) he thinks has committed a crime against an unborn child; whereas the Islamist tries to kill as many innocent people as possible.

[DarrinS]

Hitler killed thousands of Jews during WWII. Has DarrinS apologized to Jewish people on behalf of all white people yet? If not, I'll just have to assume he secretly wants to murder and/or denigrate Jews.


They were given repartions and a country.

[admiralsnackbar]

I think those people tend to be lone nuts. A noteable difference between anti-abortion nuts and hardcore Islamists is that the anti-abortion nut tries to take out the person(s) he thinks has committed a crime against an unborn child; whereas the Islamist tries to kill as many innocent people as possible.

So the Islamic extremist kills his perceived enemies, while the Christian extremist kills... his perceived enemies. Jolly good insight.

[LnGrrrR]

They were given repartions and a country.

Who was given reparations and a country? The dead Jewish people? Or their relatives?

Are you arguing that if the relatives of the victims of 9/11 get reparations and their own country, then Muslims won't have to apologize for radicals within their religion? Try keeping your strawmen straight DarrinS, it's getting confusing.

Oh, and have you apologized yet on behalf of white people?

[RandomGuy]

I think those people tend to be lone nuts. A noteable difference between anti-abortion nuts and hardcore Islamists is that the anti-abortion nut tries to take out the person(s) he thinks has committed a crime against an unborn child; whereas the Islamist tries to kill as many innocent people as possible.

Provably false, and a rather interesting display of ignorance.

Yes or no, does Al Qaeda believe that the US and the West is waging a war on muslims?

[ChumpDumper]

They were given repartions and a country.Americans have a country.

They tried to take another two for reparations.

Didn't work out.

[LnGrrrR]

I think those people tend to be lone nuts. A noteable difference between anti-abortion nuts and hardcore Islamists is that the anti-abortion nut tries to take out the person(s) he thinks has committed a crime against an unborn child; whereas the Islamist tries to kill as many innocent people as possible.

Shorter DarrinS: I believe what I believe because it makes me feel good and doesn't make me have to challenge my own assumptions about how the world works.

Edit: Also, I'm a psychologist.

[ChumpDumper]

Provably false, and a rather interesting display of ignorance.A stunning display of ignorance, even for DarrinS.

[DarrinS]

Provably false, and a rather interesting display of ignorance.

Yes or no, does Al Qaeda believe that the US and the West is waging a war on muslims?



The Imam of the Ground Zero Islamic Disney theme park certainly believes that.

[ChumpDumper]

The Imam of the Ground Zero Islamic Disney theme park certainly believes that.You are such a fucking pussy.

[AFBlue]

I think those people tend to be lone nuts. A noteable difference between anti-abortion nuts and hardcore Islamists is that the anti-abortion nut tries to take out the person(s) he thinks has committed a crime against an unborn child; whereas the Islamist tries to kill as many innocent people as possible.

Rationalization of immoral action committed for distorted belief in religious principles.

[DarrinS]

Rationalization of immoral action committed for distorted belief in religious principles.


Is that a sentence?

[AFBlue]

Is that a sentence?

Technically? No.

Your attempt at rationalization doesn't change the fact that the two scenarios are both immoral actions committed by individuals with distorted beliefs in their religion.

Whether they target supposed "innocents" or not, does not justify their actions.

[ChumpDumper]

DarrinS just tried to justify murder.

:tu

[DarrinS]

Technically? No.

Your attempt at rationalization doesn't change the fact that the two scenarios are both immoral actions committed by individuals with distorted beliefs in their religion.



I agree with that.





Whether they target supposed "innocents" or not, does not justify their actions.



I never said that. I was just pointing out a key difference. I dont' think either is justified.

I also think that the radical flavor of Islam is much more mainstream than you think, especially abroad.

[Mikesatx]

We fear what we don't know. I would venture to say that near 100% of those that provide the most fierce opposition to the mosque only know about Islam what has been reported. I am in that boat. The terror acts against the abortion doctors while almost all would say it is wrong don't fear that terrorist because they have a much better understanding of christianity. From what I have read from DarrinS I don't think he is a racist or bigot but he is on the wrong side of the issue.

[AFBlue]

We fear what we don't know. I would venture to say that near 100% of those that provide the most fierce opposition to the mosque only know about Islam what has been reported. I am in that boat. The terror acts against the abortion doctors while almost all would say it is wrong don't fear that terrorist because they have a much better understanding of christianity. From what I have read from DarrinS I don't think he is a racist or bigot but he is on the wrong side of the issue.

Anyone who is prone to making broad-brush generalizations about a group of people based on the words/actions of some is bound to be "on the wrong side of the issue".

You could apply the same logic to Boutons on republicans, for instance.

[Blake]

From what I have read from DarrinS I don't think
he is a racist or bigot but he is on the wrong side of the issue.

From what I have read, his phobias are what put him on the wrong side of the issue.

[Blackjack]

From the initial posts:


what do you personally think the reason is that people don't want the mosque to be built near Ground Zero?


I personally believe it's an emotional issue, one that tends to devolve in a moral issue, or just the belief that anything having a hint of insensitivity to the victims of 9-11 or would be seen as a slap in the face to Americans at large, would be better off built elsewhere.

It's hard to reconcile -- with some -- that even a minority of a faith or religion that perpetrated such a crime could stand to gain any kind of boost or benefit from such a project. [Edited for re-post: Those supporters and followers/strawmen that Obama's addressing with a troop surge. The ones Nancy doesn't believe exist and/or wants a residential address for] That's the crux for most I believe, even if they don't exactly have the ability or willingness to explore their thoughts. It's just an emotional and even sometimes, guttural, reaction.

You can't paint emotion with the same broad brush, as their are legitimate and illegitimate reasons for all involved, so to dismiss all that oppose as racists or Islamaphobes is -- at best -- disingenuous.

I realize there are a lot of like-minded people here but how is this all that confusing (my view, that is)?

My words have been distorted, misrepresented, misunderstood (possibly by some just coming to this late and not reading the OP) and led to some rather ridiculous and inconsequential questioning. Thus, I began to have some fun trolling Nancy. He deserved it, as he displayed an enormous amount of butthurt stemming from this part of the inital OP, I believe:


Right in that the lemmings result to name-calling and dismissing an opposing viewpoint, whilst claiming to be liberal, open-minded thinkers; wrong in believing the mosque/community center shouldn't be built.


apparently Blackjack "results" to name-calling as well.

He apparently took offense, as he felt the shoe fit.

A lot of people seem to be preaching tolerance by way of intolerance and ignorance. What exactly is that when you generalize, stereotype and lump ALL whom oppose or you simply don't understand, as being the same?

I never said -- not once -- that racism, Islamaphobia, stupidity or whatever you want to say along those lines, didn't have its part. Only that it's a PART, not the whole picture.

Nancy broad-brush-painted ALL whom oppose his view (one I share, as it pertains to the building of the mosque) as having to ALL fall into his neat little bigoted categories; I've actually come to my opinion/views by way of anecdotal evidence from a portion of the opposition. Yet, all that's been asked since is: how is it that you can respect a portion of the opposition's views; or how are these people morally conflicted?

Really?

The burden of proof falls on the person with actual anecdotal evidence and not the one making complete generalizations of an ENTIRE segment of the population?

One last time:

I know, for a fact, some good people who disagree with me and oppose the community center. They believe this can only end up as kindle to the fire for those who perpetrated the acts of 9-11's brethren and that it will inevitably become another recruiting tool. They believe the developers aren't showing the proper sensitivity under the circumstance, which has led to some resentment -- I've been asked on multiple occasions why it is they have to build there when there's a mosque within 4 blocks, the logistics (where the Muslim community is largely based and how the commute makes little-to-no sense) and the fact that there were plenty of available places to develop the community center that would never have brought 9-11 into the equation. I could only say it didn't factor into my decision; but it didn't seem to be utterly unreasonable or outlandish questioning.

I personally believe this is a great opportunity for the American-Muslim and, specifically, the Mideastern Muslim-American. No one in their right mind would tell you someone seemingly in the "right" should have to go out of their way to exercise their rights, but this is the real world -- there's never black/white, cut/dried or anything without nuance. Fact of the matter is, a lot of times in life you have to put yourself out there and put a little more effort into things than you should if you really want to be understood, accepted and hopefully, embraced by all fair-minded individuals. So for those that want to keep this in the classroom and say this is "right" and this is "wrong," have at it. Ain't nothing fair or that easy in the real world.

If the people want to diffuse the situation down at the community center, all they have to do is put a little extra effort into the assimilation of their people. Embrace 9-11. Commemorate something on or outside the community center and show the acts of 9-11 could -- and never should -- be confused with Islam. Make it unmistakeably clear that the acts were an affront to Islam as much as 9-11 (taking any kind of victory from the extremists who'd try to claim one -- the ones causing consternation with some decent people). A good-faith show of solidarity to their American brethren. A simple gesture.

Islamphobia, ignorance and anything else that involves a lack of understanding or misplaced fear can be corrected with the proper light and knowledge. Hate is hate, there's no getting around those people, but there are plenty of people that could still see the light or be won over. Why not make the effort? (It sure beats the hell out of having to defend where you choose to practice, display, build and live the life you choose at every corner.)

Should they or anyone else have to do something like that when they're seemingly in the "right?" No. Would they and the rest of the country stand to benefit if they did? Absolutely.

This is why shit never gets done. Ignorance and stubbornness is a disease, and it happens to plague the human race more now than at any other time in my lifetime . . .

[Mikesatx]

Phobias driven by ignorance of the Islamic faith not hate for muslims.

[Blackjack]

Those that fear rarely have the capacity, ability or willingness to differentiate.

[Mikesatx]

Those without the willingness are a hopeless bunch. The capacity and ability I think most have. We teach world history in our schools maybe we should push for classes on the major religions of the world.

[Blackjack]

More knowledge is never a bad thing.

Like I said, haters (racists, bigots, etc.) will always exist. But there are many more people that simply don't understand or are blinded by emotion that could become the kind of person you'd hope all would be: tolerant -- live and let live.

Shouting racist and bigot at the drop of a hat -- regardless what "side" says or does it -- is not an example of that, or the recipe to achieve it.

[Winehole23]

Shouting racist and bigot at the drop of a hat -- regardless what "side" says or does it -- is not an example of that, or the recipe to achieve it.True. Around here it seems to cause hearts to harden in their own prejudice.

The role of neurotic guilt ought not be downplayed. The simulation of social rectitude primarily has significance for the performer, who may or may not possess the socially agreed minimum of extra-legal moral probity.

[Blackjack]

True. Around here it seems to cause hearts to harden in their own prejudice.

The role of neurotic guilt ought not be downplayed. The simulation of social rectitude primarily has significance for the performer, who may or may not possess the socially agreed minimum of extra-legal moral probity.

Exactly what I would've said had I gone to college, I imagine. :lol

[Winehole23]

Bad faith/guilt is a bitch.

[LnGrrrR]

I know, for a fact, some good people who disagree with me and oppose the community center. They believe this can only end up as kindle to the fire for those who perpetrated the acts of 9-11's brethren and that it will inevitably become another recruiting tool.

How, though? How could America allowing a Muslim to open up a Muslim mosque possibly be used as "kindle for the fire"? If they say, "they'll say America is weak", doesn't it suggest the exact opposite? The strength of our American ideal of freedom of religion allows us to see through the insensitivity to do the right thing?


I've been asked on multiple occasions why it is they have to build there when there's a mosque within 4 blocks, the logistics (where the Muslim community is largely based and how the commute makes little-to-no sense) and the fact that there were plenty of available places to develop the community center that would never have brought 9-11 into the equation.

When you present them with the facts, that they are building on this land because they own it, and the number of Muslims in the area, do they then change their opinion? Or do they continue to come up with various reasons? If the latter, this shows that their argument is not based on facts but emotion.

I agree with your personal view of the mosque, but just because good people may disagree doesn't make their view on this valid. Good people can be wrong/biased/etc on certain decisions/topics/subjects.

[LnGrrrR]

Bad faith/guilt is a bitch.

But what else are we to call it when DarrinS has admitted he would watch Muslims "like a hawk" on a flight? Or when Muslim tries to equate faulty cars with faulty people of a religion? I mean, DarrinS himself has built a preponderance of evidence that he is irrationally afraid of Muslims.

[Winehole23]

You don't have to call it anything. Let it speak for itself.

[LnGrrrR]

You don't have to call it anything. Let it speak for itself.

Eh, I appreciate the value of a good label. It's shorthand, without which I'd have to explain every comment DarrinS made regarding the subject. Far easier to just suggest he's irrationally afraid of Muslims. :lol

[Winehole23]

Mine says jackass. Go make your own. :p:

[Winehole23]

I have another token embossed with the words "race hustler."

[Winehole23]

DarrinS claims to be a debunker, but his ironic pose is little discernible from the sincerity it eagerly imitates.

[LnGrrrR]

DarrinS claims to be a debunker, but his ironic pose is little discernible from the sincerity it eagerly imitates.

To that point, I could claim to be a magical unicorn; that obviously does not, in the words of Picard, "make it so". :lol

[Blackjack]

How, though? How could America allowing a Muslim to open up a Muslim mosque possibly be used as "kindle for the fire"? If they say, "they'll say America is weak", doesn't it suggest the exact opposite? The strength of our American ideal of freedom of religion allows us to see through the insensitivity to do the right thing?

No, the objection has little to nothing to do with the people actually developing the site. There's definitely some resentment at some perceived insensitivity, but it's really not about the good and fair-minded people.

It simply comes down to unintended consequence. Unintended, but consequence just the same -- that is, the potential for anything sinister to be gained from the victims and memory of 9-11 (i.e. a possible recruitment tool for extremists and the potential that they could claim any kind of victory or satisfaction from this community center).

I really wish Bloomberg and the Imam, hell, get Giuliani for the photo-op, would open this sonbitch on 9-11 with a commemoration to the fallen and that the good people of this community center could be viewed in a positive light. They just need to be seen and made human and not the foreign entity they're perceived to be now. They need to put a face to all of this and have their voice heard in the right setting, one where there's no need to be on the defense, just fellow Americans trying to live their life. They need to be seen and heard for who they are, not who or what people have been made to believe or have misunderstood -- rhetoric tends to change and even soften when there's an actual face to be seen and a clear voice to be heard.


When you present them with the facts, that they are building on this land because they own it, and the number of Muslims in the area, do they then change their opinion? Or do they continue to come up with various reasons? If the latter, this shows that their argument is not based on facts but emotion.

TBH, I haven't researched the layout and all the demographics of the city to present them with all of the facts. It's never mattered to me, so I didn't take the time.

From the little I've heard, their questions seem to have some credence, in that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of a reason why they'd choose to build there, other than the fact they chose to build there. Again, I don't talk out of my ass and say something with a certainty I haven't researched or found out for myself, so that's just on the little I've heard.

As far as I'm concerned, they've apparently met all requirements to build and I have no reason to believe the people of this center are anything other than Americans simply practicing their religion -- something this country was founded upon.


I agree with your personal view of the mosque, but just because good people may disagree doesn't make their view on this valid. Good people can be wrong/biased/etc on certain decisions/topics/subjects.

It's not about validity or what you or I to deem to be the right thing, it's simply disagreeing without being disagreeable. Respecting one's view, even if not shared. Respecting it not for their belief or conclusion but because you know it comes from a good person without hate or malice or prejudice.

You mentioned emotion. Yes, that's a HUGE part of it. And while emotion is most often without rational thought, it largely genuine, pure. So long as that purity doesn't come from a hateful and intolerant place, it's something that should be respected -- who are we to judge how someone else is affected by an event such as 9-11?

It may be wrong and it may be misguided but the people that I'm speaking to are pure and genuine in their opposition, not racists or bigots. That's all this has ever been about. I choose to give the people of this community center and the good people I disagree with the benefit of a doubt. Some simply can't, for whatever reason.

[Mikesatx]

No, the objection has little to nothing to do with the people actually developing the site. There's definitely some resentment at some perceived insensitivity, but it's really not about the good and fair-minded people.

It simply comes down to unintended consequence. Unintended, but consequence just the same -- that is, the potential for anything sinister to be gained from the victims and memory of 9-11 (i.e. a possible recruitment tool for extremists and the potential that they could claim any kind of victory or satisfaction from this community center).

I really wish Bloomberg and the Imam, hell, get Giuliani for the photo-op, would open this sonbitch on 9-11 with a commemoration to the fallen and that the good people of this community center could be viewed in a positive light. They just need to be seen and made human and not the foreign entity they're perceived to be now. They need to put a face to all of this and have their voice heard in the right setting, one where there's no need to be on the defense, just fellow Americans trying to live their life. They need to be seen and heard for who they are, not who or what people have been made to believe or have misunderstood -- rhetoric tends to change and even soften when there's an actual face to be seen and a clear voice to be heard.



TBH, I haven't researched the layout and all the demographics of the city to present them with all of the facts. It's never mattered to me, so I didn't take the time.

From the little I've heard, their questions seem to have some credence, in that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of a reason why they'd choose to build there, other than the fact they chose to build there. Again, I don't talk out of my ass and say something with a certainty I haven't researched or found out for myself, so that's just on the little I've heard.

As far as I'm concerned, they've apparently met all requirements to build and I have no reason to believe the people of this center are anything other than Americans simply practicing their religion -- something this country was founded upon.



It's not about validity or what you or I to deem to be the right thing, it's simply disagreeing without being disagreeable. Respecting one's view, even if not shared. Respecting it not for their belief or conclusion but because you know it comes from a good person without hate or malice or prejudice.

You mentioned emotion. Yes, that's a HUGE part of it. And while emotion is most often without rational thought, it largely genuine, pure. So long as that purity doesn't come from a hateful and intolerant place, it's something that should be respected -- who are we to judge how someone else is affected by an event such as 9-11?

It may be wrong and it may be misguided but the people that I'm speaking to are pure and genuine in their opposition, not racists or bigots. That's all this has ever been about. I choose to give the people of this community center and the good people I disagree with the benefit of a doubt. Some simply can't, for whatever reason.

Well said

[clambake]

bloomberg has already explained this in detail. the plan is over a year old. its not that hard to research.

if you wanted to.

[Blackjack]

bloomberg has already explained this in detail. the plan is over a year old. its not that hard to research.

if you wanted to.

Que? :huh

[DarrinS]

DarrinS claims to be a debunker, but his ironic pose is little discernible from the sincerity it eagerly imitates.

Who talks like this?

[Yonivore]

Who talks like this?
Barack's teleprompter.

[Blake]

I realize there are a lot of like-minded people here but how is this all that confusing (my view, that is)?

Several posters have tried to clarify your view for you. I'm not sure why you continue to be so confused.


My words have been distorted, misrepresented, misunderstood (possibly by some just coming to this late and not reading the OP) and led to some rather ridiculous and inconsequential questioning. Thus, I began to have some fun trolling Nancy. He deserved it, as he displayed an enormous amount of butthurt stemming from this part of the inital OP.

So instead of answering questions requiring clarification regarding your posts, you got frustrated, butthurt and went into troll mode.

I don't do butthurt and have shown no evidence of such in this thread.

You however have just verified yourself to be a pussy, vaginia. :tu


He apparently took offense, as he felt the shoe fit.

I don't take offense to lame 5th grade level name calling. Assumption fail.


A lot of people seem to be preaching tolerance by way of intolerance and ignorance. What exactly is that when you generalize, stereotype and lump ALL whom oppose or you simply don't understand, as being the same?

If you are referring to me, I have done no such thing.

Reading comprehension fail.


I never said -- not once -- that racism, Islamaphobia, stupidity or whatever you want to say along those lines, didn't have its part. Only that it's a PART, not the whole picture.

So as long as it's only a "PART", it's acceptable for you?



Nancy broad-brush-painted ALL whom oppose his view (one I share, as it pertains to the building of the mosque) as having to ALL fall into his neat little bigoted categories;

Monumental reading comprehension and/or assumption fail


I've actually come to my opinion/views by way of anecdotal evidence from a portion of the opposition. Yet, all that's been asked since is: how is it that you can respect a portion of the opposition's views; or how are these people morally conflicted?

Really?

Really.

How are these people morally conflicted?

Is racism, Islamophobia and stupidity morally acceptable for you as long as it is only a "PART" of the whole picture?


The burden of proof falls on the person with actual anecdotal evidence and not the one making complete generalizations of an ENTIRE segment of the population?

I have very clearly stated that all I have seen so far is racism and Islamophobia as reasons to oppose the community center being built.

I have never once claimed that those are the only reasons.

You have said there is more to it than those.

The burden of proof is on you, vaginia.


One last time:

doubtful


I know, for a fact, some good people who disagree with me and oppose the community center. They believe this can only end up as kindle to the fire for those who perpetrated the acts of 9-11's brethren and that it will inevitably become another recruiting tool.

Please explain how this is anything but fear of the Muslims.



They believe the developers aren't showing the proper sensitivity under the circumstance, which has led to some resentment -- I've been asked on multiple occasions why it is they have to build there when there's a mosque within 4 blocks, the logistics (where the Muslim community is largely based and how the commute makes little-to-no sense) and the fact that there were plenty of available places to develop the community center that would never have brought 9-11 into the equation. I could only say it didn't factor into my decision; but it didn't seem to be utterly unreasonable or outlandish questioning.

What do these people believe are the motives for Muslims building a community center near Ground Zero?


I personally believe this is a great opportunity for the American-Muslim and, specifically, the Mideastern Muslim-American. No one in their right mind would tell you someone seemingly in the "right" should have to go out of their way to exercise their rights

They absolutely should not have to go out of their way for racists or Islamophobes.


but this is the real world -- there's never black/white, cut/dried or anything without nuance. Fact of the matter is, a lot of times in life you have to put yourself out there and put a little more effort into things than you should if you really want to be understood, accepted and hopefully, embraced by all fair-minded individuals. So for those that want to keep this in the classroom and say this is "right" and this is "wrong," have at it. Ain't nothing fair or that easy in the real world.

So you are giving these opposers a pass because there is a gray murky area that you would rather not take the effort to clear up and make right. You apparently are ok with them staying in the gray.

There is a black and white, vaginia. Stop being a pussy and recognize that racism, ignorance and Islamophobia even in "PART" is wrong.


If the people want to diffuse the situation down at the community center, all they have to do is put a little extra effort into the assimilation of their people. Embrace 9-11. Commemorate something on or outside the community center and show the acts of 9-11 could -- and never should -- be confused with Islam. Make it unmistakeably clear that the acts were an affront to Islam as much as 9-11 (taking any kind of victory from the extremists who'd try to claim one -- the ones causing consternation with some decent people). A good-faith show of solidarity to their American brethren. A simple gesture.

Not that they need to, but they are putting in a 9-11 memorial on site.


Islamphobia, ignorance and anything else that involves a lack of understanding or misplaced fear can be corrected with the proper light and knowledge. Hate is hate, there's no getting around those people, but there are plenty of people that could still see the light or be won over. Why not make the effort? (It sure beats the hell out of having to defend where you choose to practice, display, build and live the life you choose at every corner.)


I agree.

You should stop condoning such behavior.


Should they or anyone else have to do something like that when they're seemingly in the "right?" No.

Right. No.


Would they and the rest of the country stand to benefit if they did? Absolutely.

They? They would benefit by appeasing some of the Islamophobes, possibly keeping them off their back.

The rest of the country benefiting? Imo, no.

We would all be better off if everyone would just stfu and let them construct their perfectly legal community center complete with prayer center in peace.


This is why shit never gets done. Ignorance and stubbornness is a disease, and it happens to plague the human race more now than at any other time in my lifetime . . .

And it doesn't help anyone when you condone it, even if it is just "PART" of the whole picture.

[Winehole23]

Barack's teleprompter.Just suplexed boutons in the Repuglan thread. You suck at this.

[Blake]

It simply comes down to unintended consequence. Unintended, but consequence just the same -- that is, the potential for anything sinister to be gained from the victims and memory of 9-11 (i.e. a possible recruitment tool for extremists and the potential that they could claim any kind of victory or satisfaction from this community center).

You really don't know what Islamophobia is.


I really wish Bloomberg and the Imam, hell, get Giuliani for the photo-op, would open this sonbitch on 9-11 with a commemoration to the fallen and that the good people of this community center could be viewed in a positive light. They just need to be seen and made human and not the foreign entity they're perceived to be now. They need to put a face to all of this and have their voice heard in the right setting, one where there's no need to be on the defense, just fellow Americans trying to live their life. They need to be seen and heard for who they are, not who or what people have been made to believe or have misunderstood -- rhetoric tends to change and even soften when there's an actual face to be seen and a clear voice to be heard.

They are putting in a 9-11 memorial.

It's sad that people like you feel they need to do so.


As far as I'm concerned, they've apparently met all requirements to build and I have no reason to believe the people of this center are anything other than Americans simply practicing their religion -- something this country was founded upon.

But you don't fault people that believe otherwise.


It's not about validity or what you or I to deem to be the right thing, it's simply disagreeing without being disagreeable. Respecting one's view, even if not shared. Respecting it not for their belief or conclusion but because you know it comes from a good person without hate or malice or prejudice.

If it isn't coming from hate or prejudice, where is it coming from?


You mentioned emotion. Yes, that's a HUGE part of it. And while emotion is most often without rational thought, it largely genuine, pure. So long as that purity doesn't come from a hateful and intolerant place, it's something that should be respected -- who are we to judge how someone else is affected by an event such as 9-11?

Nobody is judging how someone else is affected by 9-11.

I'm asking why someone else is judging others for putting in a community center near Ground Zero.


It may be wrong and it may be misguided but the people that I'm speaking to are pure and genuine in their opposition, not racists or bigots.

Pure, genuine Islamophobic feelings.


That's all this has ever been about. I choose to give the people of this community center and the good people I disagree with the benefit of a doubt. Some simply can't, for whatever reason.

I can't because the only reasons I can come up with are racism and Islamophobia.

I'm not saying those are the only reasons. I'm asking you what other reasons there are.

You haven't come up with any other reasons either.

Ask your friends what their reasons are for opposing the community center and get back with us, vaginia.

[Blackjack]

Several posters have tried to clarify your view for you. I'm not sure why you continue to be so confused.



So instead of answering questions requiring clarification regarding your posts, you got frustrated, butthurt and went into troll mode.

I don't do butthurt and have shown no evidence of such in this thread.

You however have just verified yourself to be a pussy, vaginia. :tu



I don't take offense to lame 5th grade level name calling. Assumption fail.



If you are referring to me, I have done no such thing.

Reading comprehension fail.



So as long as it's only a "PART", it's acceptable for you?




Monumental reading comprehension and/or assumption fail



Really.

How are these people morally conflicted?

Is racism, Islamophobia and stupidity morally acceptable for you as long as it is only a "PART" of the whole picture?



I have very clearly stated that all I have seen so far is racism and Islamophobia as reasons to oppose the community center being built.

I have never once claimed that those are the only reasons.

You have said there is more to it than those.

The burden of proof is on you, vaginia.



doubtful



Please explain how this is anything but fear of the Muslims.




What do these people believe are the motives for Muslims building a community center near Ground Zero?



They absolutely should not have to go out of their way for racists or Islamophobes.



So you are giving these opposers a pass because there is a gray murky area that you would rather not take the effort to clear up and make right. You apparently are ok with them staying in the gray.

There is a black and white, vaginia. Stop being a pussy and recognize that racism, ignorance and Islamophobia even in "PART" is wrong.



Not that they need to, but they are putting in a 9-11 memorial on site.



I agree.

You should stop condoning such behavior.



Right. No.



They? They would benefit by appeasing some of the Islamophobes, possibly keeping them off their back.

The rest of the country benefiting? Imo, no.

We would all be better off if everyone would just stfu and let them construct their perfectly legal community center complete with prayer center in peace.



And it doesn't help anyone when you condone it, even if it is just "PART" of the whole picture.

:rollin

Listen, Blake (thanks to you, I do actually know your name since you were nice enough to point me in the direction in which it was displayed), let's not confuse me deciding to troll you and deciding to respond to 2 or 3 others that had similar questions as me not giving up on you. I have -- at least as it pertains to this topic. I had some downtime that led to boredom, decided to try and have a conversation with the Politicals and found myself being confronted with either a troll-job, some serious condescension, possible butthurt and/or disingenuous questioning and logic. I made my point, then had some fun when the conversation became a nonsensical argument of the semantical realm: Why is it, or how is it a moral issue? (As if good people couldn't wrestle with the prospect of unintended consequence besmirching the memory of those that lost their lives on 9-11 -- or you simply moved the goal posts to suggest I had been excusing ALL who oppose as having that view and not a portion you seem to believe can't and doesn't exist, even when presented with some anecdotal evidence that it does.)

Again, lets look at the facts.

I said this:


Right in that the lemmings result to name-calling and dismissing any opposing viewpoint, whilst claiming to be liberal, open-minded thinkers; wrong in believeing the mosque/community center shouldn't be built.

You answered with this:


apparently Blackjack "results" to name-calling as well.


I do it too for sure. I just wanted to point out the irony in BJ's post. It's so good.

And you've just suggested I resorted to name-calling from the start.

I never called you, anyone on this board or anyone specifically a lemming, I defined what a lemming to be. You apparently took offense, there's simply no logical reason to believe otherwise -- there's also apparently good reason why you don't find the irony in painting an entire segment of the population as being racist, Islamaphobic or stupid without any evidence to prove it: Generalizations, stereotypes and, yes, bigotry, is not a good way to extol one's tolerance, intelligence and open-mindedness.

That's irony -- not me calling lemmings "lemmings."

[Blake]

:rollin

Listen, Blake (thanks to you, I do actually know your name since you were nice enough to point me in the direction in which it was displayed), let's not confuse me deciding to troll you and deciding to respond to 2 or 3 others that had similar questions as me not giving up on you. I have -- at least as it pertains to this topic.

I'm not confused.

You made it clear that you couldn't take it any more and went into troll mode.

You are clearly a pussy.


I had some downtime that led to boredom, decided to try and have a conversation with the Politicals and found myself being confronted with either a troll-job, some serious condescension, possible butthurt and/or disingenuous questioning and logic.

Nothing disingenuous about my questioning your posts.

Definite butthurt on you part.


I made my point, then had some fun when the conversation became a nonsensical argument of the semantical realm: Why is it, or how is it a moral issue?

It's not an argument. It's a question asking you to back up the claim you made and to clarify what you mean by moral issue.

It's not confusing at all.

I have had my fun watching you trying to justify others' fear of Muslims and melt down into troll mode after failing to do so.


(As if good people couldn't wrestle with the prospect of unintended consequence besmirching the memory of those that lost their lives on 9-11 -- or you simply moved the goal posts to suggest I had been excusing ALL who oppose as having that view and not a portion you seem to believe can't and doesn't exist, even when presented with some anecdotal evidence that it does.)

I haven't moved any goal posts.

The questions remain the same.

What more is it, if it's not Islamophobia or racism?

Everything you have described falls into at least one of those two catgories. You apparently are too stupid to realize it.


Again, lets look at the facts.

I said this:



You answered with this:

Yes, I was making fun of the way you used the word "results" when you meant to say "resorts".

It wasn't really that funny but I just threw it out there any way.


And you've just suggested I resorted to name-calling from the start.

I never called you, anyone on this board or anyone specifically a lemming, I defined what a lemming to be.

You referred to others as "lemmings", thus calling them names making you a name caller.

Pretty simple.


You apparently took offense, there's simply no logical reason to believe otherwise --

Assumption fail.

Logic fail.

Apparently these are par for the course for you.


there's also apparently good reason why you don't find the irony in painting an entire segment of the population as being racist, Islamaphobic or stupid without any evidence to prove it: Generalizations, stereotypes and, yes, bigotry, is not a good way to extol one's tolerance, intelligence and open-mindedness.

That's irony -- not me calling lemmings "lemmings."

There's no irony.

I'm not painting an entire segment as being racist, etc. I'm very much open to hearing other possibilities.

The examples you have provided though have been proven to be mostly Islamophobic and have failed accordingly.

More reading comprehension fail.

[Blackjack]

I agree to disagree. I respect your opinion -- as wrong-minded and counterproductive as I believe it to be.

That is, until you give me reason to believe otherwise, then I'll result to labeling you properly. :toast

[Blackjack]

Wow, I just actually read those last two retorts.

Typo smack and pussy smack, whilst (that one was for you Chump ;)) claiming the other's butthurt.

And lol:


I'm not painting an entire segment as being racist, etc. I'm very much open to hearing other possibilities.

Then why are you so adamant they are?


The examples you have provided though have been proven to be mostly Islamophobic and have failed accordingly.

Of terrorists?

[Blake]

I agree to disagree. I respect your opinion -- as wrong-minded and counterproductive as I believe it to be.

What exactly do you think my opinion is? :lol

Your opinion is that people should be allowed to be against the community center if their racism or Islamophobia is only "PART" of the big picture, because you think we don't live in a world of black and white.


That is, until you give me reason to believe otherwise, then I'll result to labeling you properly. :toast

Until you prove otherwise, I will continue to label as you as an idiot that doesn't know how to identify Islamophobes.

[Blake]

Wow, I just actually read those last two retorts.

Typo smack and pussy smack, whilst (that one was for you Chump ;)) claiming the other's butthurt.

you don't know how to identify someone who is butthurt either.

Butthurt posters melt down into lol troll mode without reason, start name calling and posting what they think are hilarious pictures.


Then why are you so adamant they are?
I am adamant that there are people out there that oppose the community center that are Islamopobic or racist. Do you disagree that there are people like this?

Again, I will ask the question......again........

If there is more to it than Islamophobia or racism........what is it?

It's not me painting a broad stroke.....it's me asking you to back up the claim.

I have no problem believing you that there is more to it than Islamophobia or racism........just provide proof of such.

Very simple.


Of terrorists?

Why are you associating terrorists with a Muslim community center?

You really don't know what Islamophobic means.....

[Blackjack]

I don't know what butthurt is, says the man who comes back with responses like that. :lol

Listen, Blake, seriously (no bullshit, troll or otherwise), this back and forth doesn't bother me one bit. You got trolled because you were deemed to be impossible to converse with on the issue. I've got nothing against you or anything to that effect.

Boiled down, it seems the biggest point of contention you have with the decent people I've mentioned is their view of morality or something they could perceive to be insensitive to the victims of 9-11 (and note that "or" part, it's been there from the first post).

So I'll ask you a question that needs no response from me or anyone else, just your opinion. If you differ, you differ. Just an opinion.

If you believe you're in the "right" to do something but there could -- and probably would -- be some negative unintended consequences for you doing so, are you posed with any kind of moral dilemma?

Honest question. That seems to be where you differ with the aforementioned and the reason I'm able to respect their opposition, even in complete disagreement.

[Blackjack]

Your opinion is that people should be allowed to be against the community center if their racism or Islamophobia is only "PART" of the big picture, because you think we don't live in a world of black and white.

For the posters not named Blake, is this the view my posts would suggest, that racism and Islamaphobia only be part of their reasoning; or did I suggest that their are separate groups within the opposition and the one that I was speaking to had nothing to do with racism or Islamaphobia?

That's a completely honest question. If I've failed to make my opinion known clearly, I'd like to know.

[Winehole23]

If you believe you're in the "right" to do something but there could -- and probably would -- be some negative unintended consequences for you doing so, are you posed with any kind of moral dilemma? Do property rights and religious freedom for Muslims involve any kind of moral dilemma, since there would probably be negative unintended consequences for respecting them? :lol

[Blackjack]

Do property rights and religious freedom for Muslims involve any kind of moral dilemma, since there would probably be negative unintended consequences for respecting them? :lol

Like what, being called a terrorist sympathizer by some asshat?

[Winehole23]

That would be one. I thought you were alluding to the possibility of future violence at or around the GZM.

[clambake]

i'm sure oj thought his murders were moral.

[Winehole23]

When Fox News reported on this initially a year ago, nobody much cared. Laura Ingraham even gave it a laconic thumbs up.

What changed?

[clambake]

When Fox News reported on this initially a year ago, nobody much cared. Laura Ingraham even gave it a laconic thumbs up.

What changed?

the sheep have ears.

[Blackjack]

That would be one. I thought you were alluding to the possibility of future violence at or around the GZM.

Well, in all honesty, I was just fuckin' around.

Simply put, if you're in charge of this community center, the Imam even, and you know full well you're in the "right" to go forward with the project -- and you know full-well there's definitely the potential for this to be used as a recruitment tool or fuel to the fire of the perpetrators of 9-11's brethren -- do you not have any kind of pause? Any kind of conflicting feelings/moral dilemmas under this particular sensitive circumstance? (And this particular circumstance has everything to do with why it is there are some legitimately conflicted people.)



i'm sure oj thought his murders were moral.

Props. Didn't expect to see Juice mentioned in this thread. :tu

[Blackjack]

When Fox News reported on this initially a year ago, nobody much cared. Laura Ingraham even gave it a laconic thumbs up.

What changed?

"Thumbs up," all of a sudden reminded me of flipping through the channels and seeing her start off O'Reilly's show with that ridiculous point he always does at the top of the program. :lol

[clambake]

Well, in all honesty, I was just fuckin' around.

Simply put, if you're in charge of this community center, the Imam even, and you know full well you're in the "right" to go forward with the project -- and you know full-well there's definitely the potential for this to be used as a recruitment tool or fuel to the fire of the perpetrators of 9-11's brethren -- do you not have any kind of pause? Any kind of conflicting feelings/moral dilemmas under this particular sensitive circumstance? (And this particular circumstance has everything to do with why it is there are some legitimately conflicted people.)
it will be a recruitment tool when a handful of knuckledraggers attempt to blow it up.




Props. Didn't expect to see Juice mentioned in this thread. :tu
i think you've alluded to the idea that if someone believes in their position enough, then its somehow moral.

[Mikesatx]

For the posters not named Blake, is this the view my posts would suggest, that racism and Islamaphobia only be part of their reasoning; or did I suggest that their are separate groups within the opposition and the one that I was speaking to had nothing to do with racism or Islamaphobia?

That's a completely honest question. If I've failed to make my opinion known clearly, I'd like to know.

Here is what I have gotten from the exchange:

Blake: If you are against the mosque you are an Islamaphobe.

Blackjack: I agree, but don't be so quick to judge. People are forming opinions based off of what they know. Don't be quick to judge they are just uninformed.


You are both right

[Blackjack]

it will be a recruitment tool when a handful of knuckledraggers attempt to blow it up.

If you're asking my opinion, it'll be a recruitment tool for terrorists so long as there's no significant outreach from the community center to the opposition that could be won over. There'd have to be some kind of clear statement and declaration that the perpetrators of 9-11 were indeed extremists and their actions were an affront to Islam and the people of this project, just the same as any other American. Unfortunate as that is.

There's a fair amount of opposition that could be won over and that's about the only way I could see it being done given how heated and emotional the project has become (on both sides). No one should ever have to prove a negative or be forced to defend a just cause, but it doesn't mean plenty haven't had to or that many won't have to now and in the future -- this has been the case for just about any minority in history. It's the nature of the beast in the real world, not some theoretical argument that takes place in a vacuum.

If you're chillin' over on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan (or wherever your terrorizin' ass happens to find yourself), you're ecstatic there's any kind of unrest. And now that it's become the lightning rod of an issue it has, it's a big ol' F-U to the Americans if it's built (and sign that their cause was and is just); or it's an affront to Islam and the latest act of the Zionist oppressor striking once again if it's not. They're going to spin it whatever possible way they can.


i think you've alluded to the idea that if someone believes in their position enough, then its somehow moral.

Nope.


Here is what I have gotten from the exchange:

Blake: If you are against the mosque you are an Islamaphobe.

Blackjack: I agree, but don't be so quick to judge. People are forming opinions based off of what they know. Don't be quick to judge they are just uninformed.


You are both right

If that's the takeaway from what I've written, that ain't a good sign (and I'm not sure if it's for me or the reader).

I think it's been made pretty clear that Blake believes anyone against the building of the mosque is racist, Islamaphobic or a moron, essentially.

I believe there are portions and pockets of legitimate and illegitimate opposition. I don't believe all objections and objectors are the same, and I certainly don't believe they're all racists or Islamaphobes -- not all objection comes from hate or fear.

From what I've gathered in anecdotal evidence and what the polls seem to suggest, it's that most don't want this thing built (something like 70% would prefer it at least be done elsewhere) and a little less than most (60% or so) believe they have the right to, thus they'll tolerate it. That leaves roughly 10% who just couldn't reconcile with the same issues that have 70% of the country thinking it's at least in bad taste or insensitive.

Does that automatically make that 10% racist or Islamaphobic? I don't believe so. I'm much more apt to believe racists and Islamaphobes are what they are from the jump. Seems pretty reasonable to deduce that the 10% unable to reconcile with their unease are just genuinely conflicted and it's left them opposing. (And the numbers are inconsequential, it's only a way of making a point.)

So if you're an American that falls in that particular 10% and are asking yourself, "How is it that the people of this community center could choose to build in such a sacred and sensitive place and not be mindful enough to the unintended consequences -- even if it's nary the possibility the victims of 9-11 could have their memory dishonored or besmirched -- not to build elsewhere when there were seemingly better options available (for all involved)?"

Is that racist or fearful of a people ... or is it simply believing this project isn't in the "right," even if they've got the right to?

I don't believe that's racist or Islamaphobic. I simply believe it's wrong -- they're allowing what they believe to be "right" and "wrong" (their morality) to supersede the law of the land.

[clambake]

you want them to apologize for the actions of extremist......because you've concluded that they're the brothers of these extremist.

you, sir, have made up your mind.

[Blackjack]

Nope, that's almost the exact opposite of what I said.

I'm coming to terms with the fact that I just speak a different language or I've entered some kind of message board Twilight Zone (or it's all a conspiracy and Galileo's been right all along).

[Winehole23]

Well, in all honesty, I was just fuckin' around.Believable to me until you said:


Simply put, if you're in charge of this community center, the Imam even, and you know full well you're in the "right" to go forward with the project -- and you know full-well there's definitely the potential for this to be used as a recruitment tool or fuel to the fire of the perpetrators of 9-11's brethren -- do you not have any kind of pause? I'm not really sure Wahhabists consider Sufis brethren 100%. Are you?


Any kind of conflicting feelings/moral dilemmas under this particular sensitive circumstance? For me? None whatsoever.

It only seems sensitive because you already kicked all the Muslims into the same ditch. That makes as much sense as kicking all the Christians into the same ditch after OKC would have made. Very fucking little.

[Winehole23]

Whirling dervishes near Ground Zero are fine by me. Rauf's particular strain of Islamic mysticism isn't the problem.

[Blake]

If you believe you're in the "right" to do something but there could -- and probably would -- be some negative unintended consequences for you doing so, are you posed with any kind of moral dilemma?


If you believe you are right, then what is the moral dilemma?

If something illegal happens as a result, we should be protecting those that are in the right.......not putting pressure on those that are in the right to change.

Unless they come up with a damn good legal reason to not have the community center built, you should be putting pressure on the opposers to stfu.

[Blake]

Well, in all honesty, I was just fuckin' around.

Simply put, if you're in charge of this community center, the Imam even, and you know full well you're in the "right" to go forward with the project -- and you know full-well there's definitely the potential for this to be used as a recruitment tool or fuel to the fire of the perpetrators of 9-11's brethren -- do you not have any kind of pause? Any kind of conflicting feelings/moral dilemmas under this particular sensitive circumstance? (And this particular circumstance has everything to do with why it is there are some legitimately conflicted people.)

do you think there is a moral dilemma for a black family to build a home in a white neighborhood in a state like Virginia? or Mississippi? or South Carolina?

[Blackjack]

I'm not really sure Wahhabists consider Sufis brethren 100%. Are you?

That's just missing the boat of a view I'm relaying and don't share.

The perpetrators of 9-11 used what I believe to be a distorted view of Islam, but I'll admit that I'm no theologian or expert on the faith. Anyone who shares in the glory of the acts of 9-11 or views the unrest and potential outcome of this mosques building (i.e., terrorists and their sympathizers), would fall into the "brethren" category -- it's not alluding to a sect or one particular group.


For me? None whatsoever.

Me neither. Does that make one who it does make a difference for racists and/or Islamaphobic; or does it simply make them wrong and incapable of separating what they believe to be "right" and "wrong" from what you, I and others believe to be "right and "wrong?" Does one's morality supersede legality at any given time?

Can people just genuinely be wrong without hate, fear or malice?


It only seems sensitive because you already kicked all the Muslims into the same ditch. That makes as much sense as kicking all the Christians into the same ditch after OKC would have made. Very fucking little.

Hopefully I just addressed that.


If you believe you are right, then what is the moral dilemma?

None what-so-ever for me.

The moral dilemma for them is they believe the builders to not be in the "right," even if having the right to do so. Reconciling with that notion leaves them conflicted because it has them wondering and asking if they should be for someone doing what they believe to be in the "wrong" to do, even if they have the actual right to do so.

They're (at least the handful of people I've personally talked to about this) objections are with the community center's perceived insensitivity to the whole circumstance. And in an issue so fueled with emotion it seems to become "How could you do this?" or "How could you not see this development (which all I've talked to have no problem with its building just the location) should be built elsewhere, away from the sensitivity of 9-11?" that's the read I've come away with.


If something illegal happens as a result, we should be protecting those that are in the right.......not putting pressure on those that are in the right to change.

I agree.


Unless they come up with a damn good legal reason to not have the community center built, you should be putting pressure on the opposers to stfu.

Why? Just as the community center has the right to build the opposition has a right to dissent. If it enters into hate-speech and escalates into something unlawful, then you act accordingly with the law of the land.


do you think there is a moral dilemma for a black family to build a home in a white neighborhood in a state like Virginia? or Mississippi? or South Carolina?

No, and I fail to see how that has any kind of relevance to anything I've said. There's something being lost in translation but I've yet to pinpoint exactly what that is.

[Winehole23]

Can people just genuinely be wrong without hate, fear or malice?Sure. Their hate, fear and malice can also lead them to it.

[Blackjack]

Sure. Their hate, fear and malice can also lead them to it.

Agree. Also as in, there will be those that are simply wrong and those that are wrong for the aforementioned reasons.

ALL objectors are not the same and of the same reason. I've stated that from the beginning. I disagree with broad-brushing anyone and anything as ALL being the same, whether it's a people or view on any matter.

It's not cut and dried or black and white in the real world. Nuance exists in everything and everyone. People for the building of this particular mosque can come to that conclusion for different reasons, both good and bad -- likewise with those whom oppose. Ya dig?

[Blake]

Does one's morality supersede legality at any given time?

I cant think of any time it would.


Can people just genuinely be wrong without hate, fear or malice?

This is what I've been asking you the entire thread.

If they can, please explain how.



The moral dilemma for them is they believe the builders to not be in the "right," even if having the right to do so. Reconciling with that notion leaves them conflicted because it has them wondering and asking if they should be for someone doing what they believe to be in the "wrong" to do, even if they have the actual right to do so.

why do these "people" believe the builders to be in the wrong?


They're (at least the handful of people I've personally talked to about this) objections are with the community center's perceived insensitivity to the whole circumstance.

what's the appropriate amount of sensitivity for these "people" you are defending?

should they move it 4 blocks away?

should they take the "Muslim" out of it?

Ask them what makes them specifically sensitive and then get back with us.


And in an issue so fueled with emotion it seems to become "How could you do this?" or "How could you not see this development (which all I've talked to have no problem with its building just the location) should be built elsewhere, away from the sensitivity of 9-11?" that's the read I've come away with.

how far away should they build it?


I agree.

Then why are you apparently defending the sensitivities of those "people"?


Why? Just as the community center has the right to build the opposition has a right to dissent. If it enters into hate-speech and escalates into something unlawful, then you act accordingly with the law of the land.

Absolutely they have the legal right to be racist or Islamophobic.


No, and I fail to see how that has any kind of relevance to anything I've said. There's something being lost in translation but I've yet to pinpoint exactly what that is.

I'm just wondering if you think a black family has the moral obligation to keep their house in a black neighborhood to avoid any unintended "consequences".

[admiralsnackbar]

Ya dig?

Not yet, honestly. I get that you want to steer clear of using terms that paint opponents of the community center as stereotypical bigots, but I can't help but reiterate that stereotypical bigotry is probably the rarest form of prejudice -- most of it is as unconscious and (again) banal as brushing one's teeth.

There's a way in which I understand that condemning, say, all opponents of the suffragette movement as mysogynists is inaccurate because they weren't necessarily virulent women-haters ("misogyny as compared to what?). At the same time, I don't know what else you call it when you treat a woman like property, oppose her freedom, and consider her a second-class citizen because you're scared of change. It may not immediately seem misogynistic, but it's ultimately inescapable.

The fact that some waxen-mustachioed penny-farthing riding gent wasn't generous enough of spirit to entertain the notion that his wife was at least as intelligent and capable as a shit-faced cocaine/opium-addled hobo off the street who happened to have a dick seems to lack any sort of humanistic, American imagination -- much less logical follow-through... and that's what this all boils down to for me: can the opponents of the community center articulate a valid reason for their opposition? Can they persuasively argue that women shouldn't vote, so to speak?

I guess our standards for valid reasons differ since you haven't offered up a compelling reason (hypothetical or otherwise) to halt the development of the place, but maybe that's the crux of our inability to understand each other's positions? Our standards for justification? In the end, I can't help but feel that your read on prejudice (be it that it's based on fear and ignorance or a bona-fide feeling of superiority) in this context is itself a victim of your prejudices of what a prejudiced person is.

For myself, at least, I feel we are all bigots on some level. Sometimes we are so consciously, but mostly I expect we aren't, and this is why I feel like the legislative framework in which we consider these things is so important.

As Americans, we're granted the freedom to believe what we want to, but we also live under the directive that we are all entitled to our pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Since these two sides (individuality vs. society) are at odds so often, the need to explain and logically defend one's position is crucial, as is the need to be mindful that we are part of a greater whole.

[LnGrrrR]

It's not about validity or what you or I to deem to be the right thing, it's simply disagreeing without being disagreeable. Respecting one's view, even if not shared. Respecting it not for their belief or conclusion but because you know it comes from a good person without hate or malice or prejudice.

What does the PERSON have to do with the BELIEF? Let's say you have a really good friend, and he one day tells you he thinks it's perfectly moral to sleep with a 13 year old girl he knows.

Does the fact that he's a "good person without hate or malice or prejudice" mean that you have to respect his beliefs?


You mentioned emotion. Yes, that's a HUGE part of it. And while emotion is most often without rational thought, it largely genuine, pure. So long as that purity doesn't come from a hateful and intolerant place, it's something that should be respected -- who are we to judge how someone else is affected by an event such as 9-11?

I judge because it is my duty, and all of society's. We must determine what we consider appropriate/moral/etc. I think torture is horrendous, and feel that we as a people are above it. Should I try to respect the belief that torture is respectable because some good people think it's ok?


It may be wrong and it may be misguided but the people that I'm speaking to are pure and genuine in their opposition, not racists or bigots. That's all this has ever been about. I choose to give the people of this community center and the good people I disagree with the benefit of a doubt. Some simply can't, for whatever reason.

We're not talking about the person. We're talking about the BELIEF. Is the BELIEF that this mosque is offensive justified, or not? No one's arguing whether it offends some people; we're arguing whether those people are justified. Can you give a valid reason for the justification of their being offensed?

[LnGrrrR]

If you're chillin' over on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan (or wherever your terrorizin' ass happens to find yourself), you're ecstatic there's any kind of unrest. And now that it's become the lightning rod of an issue it has, it's a big ol' F-U to the Americans if it's built (and sign that their cause was and is just); or it's an affront to Islam and the latest act of the Zionist oppressor striking once again if it's not. They're going to spin it whatever possible way they can.

Why would people be ecstatic? It's proof that a large number of Americans respect Muslims, even though some deranged Muslims killed thousands on 9/11. You have Americans of all stripes defending people whose skin isn't the same, whose religion isn't the same, all because of an IDEAL. That's what America is about. It shows that America is strong enough to withstand any sort of attack, because we are protecting what's really important... the spirit of America, and the values it was founded on. Freedom, liberty, equality.

[Blackjack]

Sorry, but this is just getting comical.

I know that you three, specifically, don't agree with the people's view I've represented or can respect it in disagreement the way I can. This I know. This we know. This we all know.

But to say, like Blake, "I can't come to any other conclusion other than they're essentially bigots or stupid," (obviously paraphrasing) doesn't mean you're right in your assumption or conclusion.

How many conservatives and liberals share the same faith and even church, yet can't seem to agree on the most basic of issues or find moral equivalency on the same issues? You're not supposed to understand -- at least not in full -- the other side of an argument such as this. You have an ideological disposition that won't allow you to see things from the other side. There's simply no other reason why someone saying "you can't paint a whole segment of the population as racists or idiots simply because you can't understand their position" should bring this type of reaction -- is it my fault you can't find it in yourself to see why some might think this mosque is only right in legality?

As for morality never superseding legality, it sure as hell can for me. I kind of find it hard to believe that anyone could say it didn't or wouldn't at some point in their life. But to say I know exactly what all those scenarios are or if they'd be the same for me as the next guy, well, that'd be ridiculous.

As far as I can tell, there are still conservatives and liberals in this world (among other deviations), which means there's yet to be one side to prove the other wrong -- you're not going to agree with conservative-to-centrist people (which the people were in this case) if you're a staunch liberal in this case. You see the world different and have a different set of sensitivities and standards. That's fine. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Just don't be an intolerant and closed-minded prick by calling all those in opposition racists and morons under the guise of tolerance and open-mindedness. It ain't all that much of a chore.

And lol all of the strawmen (lol) arguments trying to find correlation with the point of view I've put forth.

You're pro-choice??? I guess that means the next time you get pissed at the kid and want to go out and can't find a babysitter, it wouldn't be completely out of the question to just off 'em, right? Because, either way you look at it, you're just killing the kid, right?

Stop with terrible analogies. Some people find it to be in terribly bad taste to build a mosque where thousands of innocent Americans were slain by terrorists using Islam as their guide. They believe that only more harm than good can come from this and they ain't all right with that, not given the opportunity for those innocent Americans (of all faiths and colors) to have any type of tarnish to their memory.

I can disagree with their point of view without offense. Sue me (but you won't get shit 'cause I have that right ;)).

[admiralsnackbar]

Sorry, but this is just getting comical.

I know that you three, specifically, don't agree with the people's view I've represented or can respect it in disagreement the way I can. This I know. This we know. This we all know.

But to say, like Blake, "I can't come to any other conclusion other than they're essentially bigots or stupid," (obviously paraphrasing) doesn't mean you're right in your assumption or conclusion.

How many conservatives and liberals share the same faith and even church, yet can't seem to agree on the most basic of issues or find moral equivalency on the same issues? You're not supposed to understand -- at least not in full -- the other side of an argument such as this. You have an ideological disposition that won't allow you to see things from the other side. There's simply no other reason why someone saying "you can't paint a whole segment of the population as racists or idiots simply because you can't understand their position" should bring this type of reaction -- is it my fault you can't find it in yourself to see why some might think this mosque is only right in legality?

As for morality never superseding legality, it sure as hell can for me. I kind of find it hard to believe that anyone could say it didn't or wouldn't at some point in their life. But to say I know exactly what all those scenarios are or if they'd be the same for me as the next guy, well, that'd be ridiculous.

As far as I can tell, there are still conservatives and liberals in this world (among other deviations), which means there's yet to be one side to prove the other wrong -- you're not going to agree with conservative-to-centrist people (which the people were in this case) if you're a staunch liberal in this case. You see the world different and have a different set of sensitivities and standards. That's fine. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Just don't be an intolerant and closed-minded prick by calling all those in opposition racists and morons under the guise of tolerance and open-mindedness. It ain't all that much of a chore.

And lol all of the strawmen (lol) arguments trying to find correlation with the point of view I've put forth.

You're pro-choice??? I guess that means the next time you get pissed at the kid and want to go out and can't find a babysitter, it wouldn't be completely out of the question to just off 'em, right? Because, either way you look at it, you're just killing the kid, right?

Stop with terrible analogies. Some people find it to be in terribly bad taste to build a mosque where thousands of innocent Americans were slain by terrorists using Islam as their guide. They believe that only more harm than good can come from this and they ain't all right with that, not given the opportunity for those innocent Americans (of all faiths and colors) to have any type of tarnish to their memory.

I can disagree with their point of view without offense. Sue me (but you won't get shit 'cause I have that right ;)).

Are you seriously saying it's a disposition against understanding your hypothetical good-hearted Americans to actively want to understand a position that's evidently so rarified you haven't been able to make it concrete over the course of... how many pages? Sorry, but... bullshit, man. I may be a dumbass, but I'm pretty sure I could show that you haven't done anything to rebut Lingrrr's, Blake's, or my points... just repeated yourself as though that will somehow illuminate us. And now you're cutting out on an artificially victorious note? :lol Have at it, hoss.

You did the same shit in your "Hairston-to-the-death!" defenses, where no matter what volume of proof could be provided to you to show that your argument was founded on little else than gossamer speculation, you were going to stick to your completely unverifiable guns and "nyeah nyeah nyeah, I'm out bitchez." Bush-league, man.

[Blackjack]

Are you seriously saying it's a disposition against understanding your hypothetical good-hearted Americans to actively want to understand a position that's evidently so rarified you haven't been able to make it concrete over the course of... how many pages? Sorry, but... bullshit, man. I may be a dumbass, but I'm pretty sure I could show that you haven't done anything to rebut Lingrrr's, Blake's, or my points... just repeated yourself as though that will somehow illuminate us. And now you're cutting out on an artificially victorious note? :lol Have at it, hoss.

What hypothetical, Hoss?

Unlike Blake and apparently yourself, I formed a view off of actual anecdotal evidence. This isn't a hypothetical, these are friends and family members I've argued with.

It really comes down to something quite simple. There was no need for me to try and express my views and opinions as to why, really, all I have to ask you and you ask yourself is one thing: Do you believe a whole segment of the population is racist or Islamaphobic on the basis of opposing this mosque? That simple. Not does racism and Islamaphobia exist in some of the opposition, but does it exist in ALL of the opposition.

While y'all have continued to miss the point, read half the post or done whatever it is to steer you so far of the course of my actual stance and premise, you've yet to answer that question. You've continually asked me to prove a negative and give you a definitive answer on someone else's viewpoint -- something I can't fully know, rather just get the best read possible from actual face-to-face interaction -- yet you've yet to present an argument to show that ALL that oppose are racist or Islamaphobic.

Funny, y'all are so up in arms and continue to just beat a dead horse. Tell ya what, though, I find it much easier to believe in my stance (that there actually are some decent people in opposition) than apparently yours and others that have taken issue (everyone who disagrees is a bigot).


You did the same shit in your "Hairston-to-the-death!" defenses, where no matter what volume of proof could be provided to you to show that your argument was founded on little else than gossamer speculation, you were going to stick to your completely unverifiable guns and "nyeah nyeah nyeah, I'm out bitchez." Bush-league, man.

Hairston, really? :lol

Yeah, you definitely don't have a read on me. It makes sense now why I've seen some of the replies from you here and elsewhere.

[LnGrrrR]

Blackjack, here's the problem. You keep saying that "good people have disagreement" as if that supports the argument.

I agree that conservatives can differ on various points. For instance, supporters of warrantless wiretapping have valid points on their sides, and provide them when asked.

You seem unable to provide a RATIONAL reason why people should feel justified in wanting the mosque to not open there.

How much more simple can I make it?

[LnGrrrR]

It really comes down to something quite simple. There was no need for me to try and express my views and opinions as to why, really, all I have to ask you and you ask yourself is one thing: Do you believe a whole segment of the population is racist or Islamaphobic on the basis of opposing this mosque? That simple. Not does racism and Islamaphobia exist in some of the opposition, but does it exist in ALL of the opposition.


People can believe something that is racist without actively being aware of it. Not every racist is a white supremacist.

Additionally, people can believe something due to ignorance, or at the least, a lack of factual knowledge. The whole "I think this mosque will be used for recruiting purposes!" is just something someone's crafted, an idea, with no known basis. (Unless someone cares to state it in this thread. Hasn't been done so yet that I've seen.)

Blackjack, have these good people stated any logical opposition to the mosque? One based on something other than wild suppositions?

[Blackjack]

Look, Lngrrr, I like you. You're good people. I never had anything against Blake and I've been taken off guard a little recently by snackbar, as it's read like I may have rubbed him the wrong way at some point -- when you're the sarcastic and facetious sonbitch I tend to be, it's bound to happen on a message board where there's only type and not a face to read; or any knowledge of the person to know where they're coming from. Not all the time, anyway.

So this isn't personal, it's just become impossible. (I knew it pages ago but I picked up on some condescension and butthurt -- whether I misread or not -- which presented the perfect storm for troll. I was bored. :hat)

Had I really been looking to talk down to people or call someone an idiot or lemming, specifically, I would have. I'm about as straight a shooter you'll find in real life, a place where there's actually consequence to be found -- the message board ain't a scary place, I've lived my life in and around plenty of those. We've all gotta past. I ain't no saint.

I could have very easily just told Blake from the jump the only conclusion I could come to if you saw all the opposition as racist and bigoted would be that you were in fact being a bigot yourself and you'd need proof to prove otherwise. I would have essentially been doing the same thing I've been asked to do. You can't. You can't prove a negative like that. I thought I could find a little common ground on the basis of being a supporter of this mosque's building, but it's proven to be wishful thinking.

Just as Blake and -- I assume -- you and snackbar can't come to terms or find a suitable reason to object to this mosque's/community center's building without some type of racism or bigotry (and no one can rationalize those words when being called them, as snackbar suggested by saying: "Well, we all are kinda bigots when you think about it," paraphrasing) the people -- friends and family whom I know personally (who they are, what they stand for and the way they live their life) I've argued with have yet to hear a reason why this community center needs to be built in the shadows of Ground Zero. They believe there were better places to build for both the people of the center logistically (places that would have found a better demographic for the center and bring an easier more sensible commute) and would not bring the sensitivities of 9-11 into the equation. They're left to ask "Why?" and a couple are left to wonder if some of the type of shit MiamiHeat has been talking about might have some validity. I've been unable to convince them otherwise. They may actually be right about the actual logistics, but I don't believe the sensitivities of 9-11 should come into it; I'm not a scholar when it comes to Islam ... but I can't bring myself to believe the MiamiHeat rhetoric one or two of the people I've spoken to believe could be in play. I, nor they, have budged from their stance.

As to the notion of terrorists using this issue as a means to bolster their cause or fuel their fire as being supposition? Technically, sure. But listen to any terrorism expert. Watch any and all of the cable news channels. I've heard all three of MSNBC, CNN and FOX's "experts" say it would in one way or the other. And I find it hard not to believe them on this particular issue, as it seems pretty commonsensical: any issue that causes unrest or can be used as a wedge will be used as a recruitment tool or means to incite extremist rhetoric. It's really no difference in the waging of a political campaign, you use whatever you can to help the cause. They're spin doctors, plain and simple. And even if you don't agree with me on that particular point, you won't convince me otherwise. I know for a fact you won't convince the people I know and have alluded to otherwise, and believing that is something that won't allow them to support the location of this project.

Where I differ from the family and friends I've talked to is the way I choose to live my life and hope for all involved to live theirs: never at the hands of perception or cynically. I don't believe it's right as a person or country to allow outside influence to decide how it is you live your life. I believe if you're a decent, tolerant human being or country, it shouldn't matter what anyone else says, thinks or perceives. If what you -- your actions -- are used as a means for detractors to feel the need to act upon, whether it's a simple argument or fight, to the acts of would-be terrorists, I don't believe a country like America or its people should be taking their cues from countries and places that don't offer the tolerance, freedoms and opportunities we do. We should be looking inward. We should be taking care of our own people and responsibilities first. You can't be the world's savior if you can't save yourself and you can't do all the good you hope to achieve -- through charity and aid to those outside your borders -- if you don't keep the financial books in order. At some point you lose the ability to give. The resources run dry. A bleeding heart may have all of the best intentions in the world but throwing money around at every injustice only guarantees you'll be left without the means to do so in the future. Your bleeding heart now needs a bleeding heart, an unsustainable vicious cycle. Think the world doesn't like or appreciate us now ... just wait until we're asking for their help (and I'm not talking buying debt).

As I venture away from the subject and get all whimsical on your ace, I'm left with a few questions pertaining to what this all started as: a debate on the merit of any and all opposition:

What does one hope to accomplish by stoking the flames of racism and intolerance upon generalization and opinion, not on actual facts?

Is that any way to build consensus and tolerance?

Is the mosque/community center legitimately in danger of not being built on account of the opposition (a number around 30-40%); and is that why this has become such a contentious argument over such a benign OP?

Does silencing dissent ever prove to be a good thing?

And if you feel the need to silence dissent -- as a means to not incite or encourage some disenfranchised individual(s) from potentially doing something reprehensible -- did you feel the same way about America being the Middle East's interventionists as a means to defeat terrorists and their cause (and even if you believe America's intentions were oil or anything else, please answer the question hypothetically)?

I'm just left to wonder what you're actually hoping to accomplish with the stance you've taken, in all sincerity. I simply can't understand how creating a better more tolerant people and country could benefit from such emotionally-charged rhetoric.

Maybe this has always been about being right, though, and not about doing the "right" thing -- there's both a right and wrong way to go about getting the "right" thing(s) done.






Edit: And if you read all that ... you're a better man than I. :hat)

[Blake]

It really comes down to something quite simple. There was no need for me to try and express my views and opinions as to why, really, all I have to ask you and you ask yourself is one thing: Do you believe a whole segment of the population is racist or Islamaphobic on the basis of opposing this mosque? That simple. Not does racism and Islamaphobia exist in some of the opposition, but does it exist in ALL of the opposition.

Exactly!

That's what I've been asking you, dipshit.

I asked myself if there is more and I can't come up with anything.

In the middle of all these verbose, worthless posts, it is you that has been claiming there is more.






While y'all have continued to miss the point, read half the post or done whatever it is to steer you so far of the course of my actual stance and premise, you've yet to answer that question. You've continually asked me to prove a negative and give you a definitive answer on someone else's viewpoint

You came in and claimed (paraphrased) "good people have good argument that goes beyond those things"

Great, then what are those things?

If you can't give a definitive answer then what the fuck are you doing here?

Go ask them and get back with us.


-- something I can't fully know, rather just get the best read possible from actual face-to-face interaction -- yet you've yet to present an argument to show that ALL that oppose are racist or Islamaphobic.

nobody is claiming ALL.

You are making the same assumption fail/reading comprenhension fail over and over.


Funny, y'all are so up in arms and continue to just beat a dead horse. Tell ya what, though, I find it much easier to believe in my stance (that there actually are some decent people in opposition) than apparently yours and others that have taken issue (everyone who disagrees is a bigot).

so you are taking a stance on something you say is now a negative.

you have no clue what your stance is.


Yeah, you definitely don't have a read on me. It makes sense now why I've seen some of the replies from you here and elsewhere.

Nobody has a read on you, including you.

[Blake]

Edit: And if you read all that ... you're a better man than I. :hat)

I read all that.

I didn't see anything different or new. Same shit in a slightly longer post than usual.

So far, I have no reason to believe I'm not a better man than you.

[Blackjack]

Exactly!

That's what I've been asking you, dipshit.

I asked myself if there is more and I can't come up with anything.

And that's my problem, that you can't come up with anything?

I've told you again and again why it is friends and family of mine argue with me about the placement of this project, and you ask for a reason again and again.

Same reason, Nancy. You get more of the same because the answer hasn't changed -- your butthurt and/or ignorance is a sight to behold. :lol


You came in and claimed (paraphrased) "good people have good argument that goes beyond those things"

No, Nancy, I said good people have arguments not based in racism, Islamaphopbia or whatever your ignorant condescending ass comes up with. :lol Not that I agree or think the arguments are all good or valid. They're just wrong and it's not based in hate in fear.


Great, then what are those things?

Go read one of those verbose posts and try to do so without crawling out of your skin and thinking about how you're going to one-up me or avenge the extreme butthurt you started this with when you realized you defined a lemming and felt the need to defend yourself. :rollin


If you can't give a definitive answer then what the fuck are you doing here?

Go ask them and get back with us.

I stated an opinion, Nancy. On a message board, no less. But since I've had some fun with your extreme penchant for the butthurt. Why you so, so mad, Nancy? The temper tantrum is kinda cute, though. :lol


nobody is claiming ALL.

You are making the same assumption fail/reading comprenhension fail over and over.

:lmao

Yes, that's exactly what you've been doing. That's the only reason there's been an argument. I said you couldn't broad-brush paint an entire group of people, you said you could on the basis of not being able to come up with anything else. "Prove their not racists," Nancy says! "Prove to me that there's a reason that makes sense to me why they would be in opposition without being racists and bigots," Nancy says!

Nancy, Prove to me you're not in fact a bigot and ideologue that has no intention of having a conversation! Prove to me, that you're not so butthurt over such a benign suggestion (that not all of the opposition is racist or bigoted) because of an extremely guilty conscience! I can come up with no other reason! You've yet to prove otherwise in your attempts to dissect my verbose posts!

:lmao My comprehension fail? :lmao


so you are taking a stance on something you say is now a negative.

you have no clue what your stance is.

Yes, I'm taking a "negative" position on the subject. That is, if negative means I've come to the conclusion/view based off of actual evidence proving there are actually people whom oppose this project that are not racists and bigots.

Prove to me Nancy, why I should think otherwise ... Nancy!!!

:lmao Reading comprehension smack. :lmao


Nobody has a read on you, including you.

Answering and responding to questions not directed to you, again?

lol "Nobody has a read on you," says, Nancy, the one whom can't comprehend.


I read all that.

I didn't see anything different or new. Same shit in a slightly longer post than usual.

So far, I have no reason to believe I'm not a better man than you.

Appreciate you taking the time, Nancy. Glad to know I've still got you interested and waiting with bated breath. :tu

:lmao Nancy the man. :lmao

[Blake]

And that's my problem, that you can't come up with anything?

So now it's your problem that I can't come up with anything else? :lol

So what more is it?


I've told you again and again why it is friends and family of mine argue with me about the placement of this project, and you ask for a reason again and again.

Your family and friends clearly have Islamophobia.

I've told you before, but it's obvious you have reading comprehension failure.


Same reason, Nancy. You get more of the same because the answer hasn't changed -- your butthurt and/or ignorance is a sight to behold. :lol

You getting pwned in this thread makes for great entertainment value, vaginia. :tu


No, Nancy, I said good people have arguments not based in racism, Islamaphopbia or whatever your ignorant condescending ass comes up with. :lol Not that I agree or think the arguments are all good or valid. They're just wrong and it's not based in hate in fear.

You are making the claim again that it's not based in hate or fear.

It is on you to back up the claim, vaginia.


Go read one of those verbose posts and try to do so without crawling out of your skin and thinking about how you're going to one-up me or avenge the extreme butthurt you started this with when you realized you defined a lemming and felt the need to defend yourself. :rollin

I've read all of your posts, including the ones where you clearly got butthurt and melted down into troll mode after you failed to answer the simple questions.

You still don't know what Islamophobia means.


I stated an opinion, Nancy. On a message board, no less. But since I've had some fun with your extreme penchant for the butthurt. Why you so, so mad, Nancy? The temper tantrum is kinda cute, though. :lol

The trolling was lame and is a clear sign of extreme butthurt on your part.

What more is it, if it's not fear or hate?

Why do simple questions frustrate and confuse you?


Yes, that's exactly what you've been doing.

No, it's not.

Continued reading comprehension fail on your part.


That's the only reason there's been an argument. I said you couldn't broad-brush paint an entire group of people, you said you could on the basis of not being able to come up with anything else.

Please point out the exact post(s) where I said that I could.

You won't be able to.

Another monumental assumption fail on your part.


"Prove their not racists," Nancy says! "Prove to me that there's a reason that makes sense to me why they would be in opposition without being racists and bigots," Nancy says!

U mad.

:lmao

I'm open for more reasons other than hate and fear. Please provide one....just one would be fine.

But you won't back up your claim. You're a pussy.


Nancy, Prove to me you're not in fact a bigot and ideologue that has no intention of having a conversation!

I have posts where I very clearly show support for the mosque. That's proof enough for most people.

I intend to have a conversation on a messageboard because of entertaining threads such as this.

It's hilarious to watch someone melt down and start screaming about how someone else is mad and butthurt after they try to start trolling.


Prove to me, that you're not so butthurt over such a benign suggestion (that not all of the opposition is racist or bigoted) because of an extremely guilty conscience!

Why would I have a guilty conscience? I am in favor of the mosque being built and have clearly stated such over and over.

You have been defending your friends and family's opposition to it.

U feeling guilty?


I can come up with no other reason! You've yet to prove otherwise in your attempts to dissect my verbose posts!

I have proven you to be an idiot after dissecting your posts.

U clearly mad!


:lmao My comprehension fail? :lmao

:lmao Yes :lmao




Yes, I'm taking a "negative" position on the subject. That is, if negative means I've come to the conclusion/view based off of actual evidence proving there are actually people whom oppose this project that are not racists and bigots.

Nice claim. Again.

Please show your actual evidence. Again.



Prove to me Nancy, why I should think otherwise ... Nancy!!!

U just proved U mad


:lmao Reading comprehension smack. :lmao

:lmao truth :lmao


lol "Nobody has a read on you," says, Nancy, the one whom can't comprehend.

lol you feel like you are in a twilight zone

lol everyone else is wrong and you are right



Appreciate you taking the time, Nancy. Glad to know I've still got you interested and waiting with bated breath. :tu

I've got time to wait for you to back up your claim, pussy. :tu

Another 20 pages of watching you blow up is fine by me. :corn:


:lmao Nancy the man. :lmao

:lmao the pussy :lmao

[Blackjack]

:rollin

That might be the best fucking meltdown and spin job in the history of ever. Fuckin classic. :rollin

Fuckin message board tough guy in all of his greatness. You think about me before you go to bed don't you? Mommy rubbin those shoulders, massaging those temples trying to make that headache go away. ... From the bottom of my heart, I thank you. I haven't laughed and smiled so much in forever.

BAHAHAHAHAWAWA!!!

WHYYYYYYYYY!?!?!!?!

PROOOVVVEEEE ITTTT TOOOO MEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

Please keep on pwning me. I'm sure everyone else is too lazy to go back and see how this all started, you becoming extremely butthurt and trying to do your best ChumpDumper to a massive fail. He-Larry-Us. :lmao

C'Mon, let me hear some more pussy and dipshit smack. Fuck answering any of the questions you've been asked, just keep on sticking with the gameplan: deny, deny, deny, keep plowing ahead and eventually you'll win the argument by means of convolution -- never mind that it was you who sought out my opinion and engaged in the first place.

Keep doin' your thing, Nancy. Fight the power, never surrender and whatnot. :tu

The burden of proof is on me to prove that the people I know in opposition aren't racists? Fuckin beautiful. I'm supposed to give you my opinion (which I did -- the mosque should be built) and then give you an opinion on the people I know in opposition that's factual? Factual opinions, eh? :rollin

Keep pwning me, brah. :lol

Fuckin' own my ass! Release all the pent up aggression from years of getting shit on and punk'd for the little bitch you're proving to be. :lmao

Ya know, I was pretty bigoted about message boards and the internet a few years back. I didn't know much about them and just assumed there were a bunch of socially-challenged and repressed individuals. Thanks for proving I wasn't too far off base. :rollin

Let me have it, Nancy! :elephant

[Blackjack]

And thanks for keeping with the Blake language to go along with the Blake logic.

That 2 'I's in the vagina never gets old -- Nancy's head just so far up her ass it was inevitable to find 2 there. :rollin

Let me have it, Nancy! :hungry:

[Blake]

:rollin

That might be the best fucking meltdown and spin job in the history of ever. Fuckin classic. :rollin

No spin job.

You have been pwned and everyone but you knows it.

Just answer the simple questions and it will be much easier for you.


Fuckin message board tough guy in all of his greatness. You think about me before you go to bed don't you? Mommy rubbin those shoulders, massaging those temples trying to make that headache go away. ... From the bottom of my heart, I thank you. I haven't laughed and smiled so much in forever.

U mad.

:lmao


BAHAHAHAHAWAWA!!!

WHYYYYYYYYY!?!?!!?!

PROOOVVVEEEE ITTTT TOOOO MEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

U definitely mad.


Please keep on pwning me. I'm sure everyone else is too lazy to go back and see how this all started, you becoming extremely butthurt and trying to do your best ChumpDumper to a massive fail. He-Larry-Us. :lmao

Everyone else that has gone back and read all of your posts realizes how much of a hypocrite you are, trying to walk both sides of the issue.

Me exposing your hypocrisy has led to the continual meltdown on your part.


C'Mon, let me hear some more pussy and dipshit smack.

Youre a pussy and a dipshit.

Is that really more fun for you than answering a very, very simple question?


Fuck answering any of the questions you've been asked, just keep on sticking with the gameplan: deny, deny, deny, keep plowing ahead and eventually you'll win the argument by means of convolution -- never mind that it was you who sought out my opinion and engaged in the first place.

I've answered all your questions.

Now you are resorting to all out lying to try to save whatever e-face you think you have left.

Why?


Keep doin' your thing, Nancy. Fight the power, never surrender and whatnot. :tu

Keep condoning bigotry and fear, pussy :tu


The burden of proof is on me to prove that the people I know in opposition aren't racists?

I'm not claiming people you know are racists.

You are the one saying that they have legitimate reasons to oppose the mosque.

So far, the reasons that you have posted on their behalf have amounted to nothing more than fear of the Muslims being associated with terrorists.

You are a dumbfuck.


Fuckin beautiful. I'm supposed to give you my opinion (which I did -- the mosque should be built) and then give you an opinion on the people I know in opposition that's factual? Factual opinions, eh? :rollin

I got your opinion on the mosque.

But nobody asked you to bring your friends' opinions up. You did, and you continue to justify their fear of terrorists hanging out in the new Community Center because it's a Muslim Community Center.

I called you out on condoning it, and your ass turned a bright red.

Everyone knows it but you.

You are a dumbfuck.


Keep pwning me, brah. :lol

Will do. :tu


Fuckin' own my ass! Release all the pent up aggression from years of getting shit on and punk'd for the little bitch you're proving to be. :lmao

Your doing enough self-owning, tbh.

You are a dumbfuck.


Ya know, I was pretty bigoted about message boards and the internet a few years back. I didn't know much about them and just assumed there were a bunch of socially-challenged and repressed individuals. Thanks for proving I wasn't too far off base. :rollin

You are condoning your friends' Islamophobia.

Why is that?

My guess at this point is that you are just a dumbfuck.


Let me have it, Nancy! :elephant

No need any more! You are letting yourself have it, pussy!

You are a dumbfuck.

[Blackjack]

MORRRRREEEEEEEEEEE!!!

That was weak, brah!

Dumbfuck? Hypocrite? If you're gonna make shit up you might as well get creative, for fuck's sake.

C'Mon, Nancy, tell me how tolerant you are and intolerant I am and how calling people racists and bigots is the way to enlightenment!

You're "the man," Nancy. Let me have it, dammit! C'Mon, I know you've got the anger and hostility built up ... I can see the veins in your Arial. :rollin

[Blake]

MORRRRREEEEEEEEEEE!!!

That was weak, brah!

Dumbfuck? Hypocrite? If you're gonna make shit up you might as well get creative, for fuck's sake.

C'Mon, Nancy, tell me how tolerant you are and intolerant I am and how calling people racists and bigots is the way to enlightenment!

You're "the man," Nancy. Let me have it, dammit! C'Mon, I know you've got the anger and hostility built up ... I can see the veins in your Arial. :rollin

now you've gone full koriwhat.

U definitely mad at getting pwned by me, yourself and everyone else in the thread.

More!

:lol

[Blackjack]

now you've gone full koriwhat.

U definitely mad at getting pwned by me, yourself and everyone else in the thread.

More!

:lol

Do you you use "pwned" in real life when you're getting all swole? :lol

So is chazley a Blake troll or is Blake a chazley troll? I win! I'm ownin' fools! #1 poster! Decent schtick but you just blew your cover. :lol

So was my little benign OP the first time you realized you were, well ...

http://conservativethinkers.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/lemmings.jpg

one of those? :rollin

Suck it up and move on, Nancy. I'm sure your life's had plenty -- and will have plenty more -- of disappointments. Don't allow it to get you down, brah. Somebody's gotta be the doorstop. Everybody's gotta purpose, and people like myself don't take the likes of your kind for granted, tbh. Good times. :toast

PWNIN FOOLLLZZZZ YO! :rollin

[Blake]

jibberish

This has not been a good thread for you.

:(

[Blackjack]

Let me break it down for you so even you can understand, Nancy (and so others don't have to go back and read all that's been posted to appreciate your pwnge of me;))


Blackjack: Krauthammmer's right in this particular instance that lemmings will shout racist and alike at the drop of a hat rather than acknowledge and have a productive, meaningful conversation on the subject; wrong in believing the mosque shouldn't be built


Blake: I find it ironic Blackjack is calling people names.


Blackjack: People that avoid a productive, meaningful conversation by using extreme rhetoric to shout-down, dismiss or paint the other side of the argument as having an extreme view (i.e., racist or Islamaphobe) because it does not coincide with their own, those would be people that fall into the "lemming" category. There's no irony in calling a spade a spade.


Blake: You're a name-calling hypocrite, and what moral issue could these objectors you've alluded to have?


Blackjack: First, I'm not a hypocrite, you've just read into something you shouldn't have or have taken offense upon the realization you've met the criteria for a "lemming." I didn't call anyone here a lemming or base my OP off anyone else's post. The post stands on its own. It was not a reply.

Secondly, the objectors I've come across (friends and family whose character couldn't be questioned by anyone who truly knows them) find the developers to be in the wrong (morally) even if they do believe they have the right to move forward legally. Their morality leads them to believe there is a right and wrong way to go about things. They believe the building of this mosque will inevitably have unintended consequences in some size, shape form or fashion (recruitment tool and/or validation to the cause of those that murdered thousands of innocent Americans on 9-11), and a couple are left to ask if the consequences may actually be intended, not unintended -- both the "unintended" [majority] and "may be intended" [minority] objectors I've spoken to will tell you this mosque/community center didn't have to be built in the shadows of Ground Zero. The former sight the chosen location as being insensitive and less-than-neighborly at the least; the latter sees it as a very real reason to look into and scrutinize Cordoba name. [The latter I wouldn't blame anyone for questioning the presence of Islamaphobia, but I've known the 2 individuals involved for over 20 years and know that not to be the case -- they were simply on the fence in opposition and learning of the Cordoba name, in conjunction with the community center's choosing to build in the shadows of Ground Zero [both sides of the opposition I've talked with will sight that as a major point of contention -- choosing to build there, not being forced to or without another choice], had them put 2 + 2 together and decide to oppose.


Blake: Why is it a moral issue though?


Blackjack: For all the aforementioned reasons. You can't paint ALL [This was capitalized and made clear on numerous occasions, by the way, folks] of the opposition as being racist or Islamaphobic. I've discussed the subject with objectors I know that not be the case with. They exist.


Blake: I can see no other reason why someone would object other than to be a racist, Islamaphobe or moron [essentially]. You've yet to answer why it's a moral issue. Why?[x 10 -- the birth of "Nancy."]


Blackjack: Now that's something that could be deemed as "ironic," making a blanket statement that a whole segment of the population -- ALL [Note: There's that unmistakable capitalization again] whom oppose do so for the same reasons and they're ALL based in hate or fear -- are bigots on the basis of no facts. Making an assumption that you know all. That any notion or idea which eludes you, or you are simply unable to grasp, means there are no other notions or reasons -- or because the ones offered just don't satisfy your desires. It has to mean you're correct in stating ALL whom oppose have to be racist or Islamaphobic. [At least the people I disagree with about the Cordoba name and the permutations have some kind of actual factual information to go along the actions of this project's leadership to come to an honestly wrong conclusion. But I digress. ...]


Blake: * [Butthurt, seemingly about the lemming realization and that his holier-than-thou-look-how-smart-I-am-as-I-ask-questions-I-don't-want-an-answer-to-or-were-never-in-question-because-this-ChumpDumper-impersonation-ain't-workin'-out-great-because-it-apparently-takes-talent-and-intelligence. x 10 ] *


Blackjack: * [Realizes Blake is butthurt -- seemingly about the lemming realization and that his holier-than-thou-look-how-smart-I-am-as-I-ask-questions-I-don't-want-an-answer-to-or-were-never-in-question-because-this-ChumpDumper-impersonation-ain't-workin'-out-great-because-it-apparently-takes-talent-and-intelligence] *

I decide to have a little fun by taking a stroll down troll lane [x 10].


[I talk a bit with snackbar and LnGrrrR and eventually decide to give up the troll and get the train back on the tracks. I had had my fun and was willing to let bygones be bygones. It was all in good fun.]


Blake: [Starts responding to posts not directed at him, still butthurt and not willing to let it go and move on]

Dumbfuck, dipshit, idiot, pussy, vaginia!

[Note: Still puts a smile on my face: head up his ass 2 'I's in the vagina. lol]


Blackjack: U Mad???


Blake: Pussy, dipshit, dumbfuck... answer the fucking question. You're an idiot. Pussy. Answer the the question, pussy! And I never said ALL the opposition was racist or Islamaphobic. I said there's no other answer.

[* He said on the basis of an inability to find one and an unwillingness to suggest my verbose, nuanced, genuine retorts before and after trolling him -- tee-hee -- were sufficient or satisfactory enough for him.]


Blackjack: Prove it to me! Answer the question! Prove to me you're not projecting a guilty conscience!


Blake: I don't have a guilty conscience. What reason would I have to project?


Blackjack: [lols at the notion Blake would admit to projecting and that he thought that wasn't the same response a projector would have -- conscious or unconscious, a guilty conscience comes from shame, shame you project onto others and not admit to]

Prove it to me, Nancy! Prove it to me! Prove to me you're not a closet bigot and intolerant, ignorant asshat!


Blake: U Mad???


Blackjack: [lols to self how Blake tries to turn his being made fun of into a way of flipping the "U Mad???"]

Give me all you've got, interweb thug! Release all that pent up aggression from years of being shit on!


Blake: BAHHWHAAHHWHHAHWHAHWHA


Blackjack: More! More! C'Mon, you can do better than that!


Blake: It's koriwhat. I'm just pwning you in front of everybody. You're getting owned!


Blackjack: It's chazley, SpursTalk's #1 poster!


This has not been a good thread for you.

:(

I've enjoyed it, Nancy. I've still yet to lose the smile on my face. :rollin

[Blake]

I've enjoyed it, Nancy. I've still yet to lose the smile on my face. :rollin

Others explained it to you. Reiiterating your points does not suddenly make you correct.

Not a good thread for you.

Why is it a moral issue, pussy?

[Blackjack]

Let's start fresh, Nancy. I've still yet to see how anything you've said or the position you've taken -- the arrogant and ignorance you've apposed -- isn't counterproductive to whole process: tolerance by way of intolerance; silencing dissent on account of dissent; imposing what's believed to be the "right" instead of building consensus by any and all means, even if you shouldn't necessarily have to.

So how about answering the questions you supposedly read in my genuine and verbose post?


What does one hope to accomplish by stoking the flames of racism and intolerance upon generalization and opinion, not on actual facts?

Is that any way to build consensus and tolerance?

Is the mosque/community center legitimately in danger of not being built on account of the opposition (a number around 30-40%); and is that why this has become such a contentious argument over such a benign OP?

Does silencing dissent ever prove to be a good thing?

And if you feel the need to silence dissent -- as a means to not incite or encourage some disenfranchised individual(s) from potentially doing something reprehensible -- did you feel the same way about America being the Middle East's interventionists as a means to defeat terrorists and their cause (and even if you believe America's intentions were oil or anything else, please answer the question hypothetically)?

I've made my views known, my opinions on some of the dissenting views in my circle of friends and family, and I've presented the best and most logical ways I could think of to find a better consensus in order to get the "right" thing(s) done: morality a la Blackjack.

How 'bout you, Nancy? :wakeup

[Blackjack]

Others explained it to you. Reiiterating your points does not suddenly make you correct.

Not a good thread for you.

Why is it a moral issue, pussy?

I can't believe anyone could be morally opposed to being pro-choice given the chance to interact with you. :rollin




http://www.myclassiclyrics.com/artist_biographies/images/Nancy_Kerrigan_Biography_2.jpg

WHY!?!?

[Blake]

I've made my views known, my opinions on some of the dissenting views in my circle of friends and family, and I've presented the best and most logical ways I could think of to find a better consensus in order to get the "right" thing(s) done: morality a la Blackjack.

How 'bout you, Nancy? :wakeup

You say you are in favor of the mosque being built and then also ask if the builders don't have the moral obligation to build it somewhere else because of the "sensitivity" of the issue.

You are talking out of both sides of your ass, vaginia.

You never answered this one either:

Why do you think terrorists might be associated with this community center?

[Blake]

I can't believe anyone could be morally opposed to being pro-choice given the chance to interact with you. :rollin



What is the moral dilemma, pussy?

In 50 words or less please.

[Blackjack]

You say you are in favor of the mosque being built

I am.


and then also ask if the builders don't have the moral obligation to build it somewhere else because of the "sensitivity" of the issue.

I know reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, Nancy, but I never said that, Nancy.


You are talking out of both sides of your ass, vaginia.

No, I'm not Nancy. You can't discern the difference between my opinion and the view I've relayed, Nancy.


You never answered this one either:

Why do you think terrorists might be associated with this community center?

Why do I think they are or will? Common sense. America's a war-weary country trying to wind down two wars that radical Islam has been the focal point of. 9-11 and Ground Zero are still open wounds (both figuratively and literally) with OBL, Al-Qaeda and their sympathizers still at large and yet to be dealt with and the city's failed to do anything with the actual site. It's nothing more than a daily reminder of what happened. Nothing developed or rebuilt in a way that could provide any kind of closure and help to aid those that would like to move on.

Sufficient, Nancy? I gave you my opinion on why some would associate terrorists with this place but I realize my opinion -- even when asked for it by you, Nancy -- isn't usually enough because it's not a fact. I'm still working on figuring out how to give you a factual opinion, Nancy.


What is the moral dilemma, pussy?

In 50 words or less please.

None, Nancy. I have no moral dilemma with the mosque or my pro-choice stance, Nancy.

Would you care to answer the questions you've avoided, Nancy? :wakeup

[Blake]

I am.

But your "friends" aren't and you have been condoning their opposition.


I know reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, Nancy, but I never said that, Nancy.

Obviously you can't comprehend your own posts, pussy:


and then also ask if the builders don't have the moral obligation to build it somewhere else because of the "sensitivity" of the issue.



Simply put, if you're in charge of this community center........... Any kind of conflicting feelings/moral dilemmas under this particular sensitive circumstance? (And this particular circumstance has everything to do with why it is there are some legitimately conflicted people.)


Let me know if you need to re-look at your posts where you (or your "friends") questioned the logistics of where it was being built as well.

You are now a proven liar on top of being an idiot.

Well done. :tu



Why do I think they are or will? Common sense. America's a war-weary country trying to wind down two wars that radical Islam has been the focal point of. 9-11 and Ground Zero are still open wounds (both figuratively and literally) with OBL, Al-Qaeda and their sympathizers still at large and yet to be dealt with and the city's failed to do anything with the actual site. It's nothing more than a daily reminder of what happened. Nothing developed or rebuilt in a way that could provide any kind of closure and help to aid those that would like to move on.

Sufficient, Nancy? I gave you my opinion on why some would associate terrorists with this place but I realize my opinion -- even when asked for it by you, Nancy -- isn't usually enough because it's not a fact. I'm still working on figuring out how to give you a factual opinion, Nancy.

Why are you (or your "friends") assuming that these Muslims are OBL and Al-Qaeda sympathizers?

How far away from Ground Zero would be appropriate for you for a Muslim community center to be built? Be specific.


None, Nancy. I have no moral dilemma with the mosque or my pro-choice stance, Nancy.

You have made it clear that you are not the one against it......it's your "friends".

You've also made it clear that you would rather condone their opposition than stand up to them.

It's a pussy move.


Would you care to answer the questions you've avoided, Nancy? :wakeup

I haven't purposely avoided any questions. Ask them again and I'll be glad to answer.

Good thread. :tu

[LnGrrrR]

the people -- friends and family whom I know personally (who they are, what they stand for and the way they live their life) I've argued with have yet to hear a reason why this community center needs to be built in the shadows of Ground Zero.

Because they own the land?


They believe there were better places to build for both the people of the center logistically (places that would have found a better demographic for the center and bring an easier more sensible commute) and would not bring the sensitivities of 9-11 into the equation. They're left to ask "Why?" and a couple are left to wonder if some of the type of shit MiamiHeat has been talking about might have some validity. I've been unable to convince them otherwise. They may actually be right about the actual logistics, but I don't believe the sensitivities of 9-11 should come into it; I'm not a scholar when it comes to Islam ... but I can't bring myself to believe the MiamiHeat rhetoric one or two of the people I've spoken to believe could be in play. I, nor they, have budged from their stance.

Right, but do you ask them if there's a LOGICAL reason they want the mosque moved? I think that was our point all along; that arguments asking people to move the mosque are based off passion/emotion, and not facts. Whether that passion is grounded in racism or not, it certainly seems to be grounded in SOME negative emotion, agreed?

Now, when you get to that emotion, is the reason for that emotion logically valid? For instance, some people think this will provide terrorists a "home base"... but how much sense does that make? If anything, one would think radical Muslims would AVOID this place, as it would be a pretty obvious place to look for that type of activity.


As to the notion of terrorists using this issue as a means to bolster their cause or fuel their fire as being supposition? Technically, sure. But listen to any terrorism expert. Watch any and all of the cable news channels. I've heard all three of MSNBC, CNN and FOX's "experts" say it would in one way or the other. And I find it hard not to believe them on this particular issue, as it seems pretty commonsensical: any issue that causes unrest or can be used as a wedge will be used as a recruitment tool or means to incite extremist rhetoric.

Well, for one thing, that's the price we pay living in America. :) The alternative to arguing is shutting down opinion, which is unacceptable.



What does one hope to accomplish by stoking the flames of racism and intolerance upon generalization and opinion, not on actual facts?

Blake, I and others have been LOOKING for someone to give an argument for moving the mosque that is based on facts, but I haven't seen one yet. This tells me all the appeals to move the mosque are grounded in emotion.


Is that any way to build consensus and tolerance?

I don't think I've directly accused anyone of being racist.


Is the mosque/community center legitimately in danger of not being built on account of the opposition (a number around 30-40%); and is that why this has become such a contentious argument over such a benign OP?

It's more the principle behind it.


Does silencing dissent ever prove to be a good thing?

Never said anything about silencing the opposition. Calling out the opposition for ill-founded arguments is completely fair game though.


I'm just left to wonder what you're actually hoping to accomplish with the stance you've taken, in all sincerity. I simply can't understand how creating a better more tolerant people and country could benefit from such emotionally-charged rhetoric.

What stance have I taken though? All I've asked for is an argument that says we should move the mosque due to facts. For instance, there are already existings mosques in NY; have any of them been known to harbor terrorists? (To be honest, I think an argument like this would be quite tough, which goes towards my line of thinking that it's not a logically-based argument.)


Maybe this has always been about being right, though, and not about doing the "right" thing -- there's both a right and wrong way to go about getting the "right" thing(s) done.

By arguing that they should build the mosque as proposed, you are arguing for the "right" thing and for being right.

[Blackjack]

But your "friends" aren't and you have been condoning their opposition.

I don't believe there's anything to condone, Nancy. They dissent without hate, fear or malice, Nancy. Condoning requires there to actually be something wrong, Nancy. Comprende, Nancy?



Obviously you can't comprehend your own posts, pussy:


Let me know if you need to re-look at your posts where you (or your "friends") questioned the logistics of where it was being built as well.

I'll let you know, Nancy. Haven't found reason to yet, Nancy. It's a sensitive issue, Nancy. What does that have to do with my sensitivities, Nancy? What goes on around you and the world still goes on around you and the world, Nancy. It happens to be a sensitive issue to a lot of people for and against this community center, Nancy? Comprende, Nancy?


You are now a proven liar on top of being an idiot.

Well done. :tu

You're quite the illiterate, ignorant e-thug, Nancy.



Why are you (or your "friends") assuming that these Muslims are OBL and Al-Qaeda sympathizers?

You asked why some would find any kind of correlation, Nancy. I told you why some do, Nancy -- I didn't say the people I've alluded to did, Nancy. That wasn't the question you asked, Nancy.

The majority believe this to be about potential unintended consequences, Nancy; the 2 others believe there are unintended consequences at a minimum and are weary of the Cordoba name and the project's wish to build where they are when they didn't have to, Nancy. I'm not talking rocket science, Nancy.


How far away from Ground Zero would be appropriate for you for a Muslim community center to be built? Be specific.

I'm for the center, Nancy. I'm fine with it, Nancy.


You have made it clear that you are not the one against it......it's your "friends".

I have, and what's with the quoting of friends, Nancy? Are they foreign to you, these things they call "friends."


You've also made it clear that you would rather condone their opposition than stand up to them.

There's nothing to condone, Nancy.


It's a pussy move.

It's a tolerance and free country/speech move, Nancy. Have they done anything wrong in having a belief that does not coincide with your own, Nancy?


I haven't purposely avoided any questions. Ask them again and I'll be glad to answer.

Oh, then it's just that reading comprehension thing, Nancy. It's all good. I don't really need your answers -- you and I both know they wouldn't favor your position, Nancy.


Good thread. :tu

I disagree.

GREAT THREAD. :tu :tu


Because they own the land?

When did they purchase it? I honestly don't know. But if they've had it before 9-11 that sure would be helpful to my argument.


Right, but do you ask them if there's a LOGICAL reason they want the mosque moved? I think that was our point all along; that arguments asking people to move the mosque are based off passion/emotion, and not facts. Whether that passion is grounded in racism or not, it certainly seems to be grounded in SOME negative emotion, agreed?

It's perfectly logical to them. They'll tell you again and again (I've had many a discussion on the topic) this project's desire and choice to build there was an insensitive and less-than-neighborly move/gesture.

Yes, this has to do with emotion. I've noted that on more than one occasion. I've also stated that a resentment certainly exists because of their belief that this project isn't doing the "right" thing, even if in their right and in accordance with any legality.

There are unsaid things and actions that occur and take place in every part of a person's life. Things that people do or say in an effort to not make waves, not offend, err on the side of caution or even build consensus. They simply believe this project is missing the boat in that respect.


Now, when you get to that emotion, is the reason for that emotion logically valid?

Depends on whom you ask. I personally believe there will be unintended consequences whether this thing is built or not now. It's become too big of a topic and focal point. But even if it hadn't, I'm sure there still would have been extremists using this as some kind of recruitment tool or fuel to their cause. Shit, just look at it from their point of view. If you're a follower of the same Islam apposed by the perpetrators of 9-11, wouldn't you believe this to be great news, that a beacon of Islam was now proudly being displayed in a place their brethren reduced to rubble in its name?

The difference with me is, I couldn't care less about what others think or how they'll act/react to things like this. I believe if you take care of your own shit, country and people, the rest pretty much falls in place. You can't live your life or run a country for others, you've just gotta be the best possible individual and country you can. Haters are gonna hate. If you're doing the right things and taking care of your business the way you should, fuck 'em.



For instance, some people think this will provide terrorists a "home base"... but how much sense does that make?

Those people would be idiots. You can't get around those, as idiots don't discriminate from any people or belief.


If anything, one would think radical Muslims would AVOID this place, as it would be a pretty obvious place to look for that type of activity.

If there's anything to be gained from this project by radical Islam, it's symbolism -- as reprehensible as these bastards are and can be, they're not all that stupid.



Well, for one thing, that's the price we pay living in America. :) The alternative to arguing is shutting down opinion, which is unacceptable.

Amen. :tu


Blake, I and others have been LOOKING for someone to give an argument for moving the mosque that is based on facts, but I haven't seen one yet. This tells me all the appeals to move the mosque are grounded in emotion.

I wasn't aware you and Blake were in full agreement, only that somehow the semantics of one's morality became the topic of discussion, which was completely and utterly off the mark and inconsequential to the OP that started all of this fun.

I've taken the position I have (with my family and friends' opposition) because I'm about the endgame. Sure, it can piss me off from time to time and have me wanting to regress to the immature Blackjack of yesteryear, crackin' heads and whatnot, but I've mellowed as I've aged. And since I know these particular objectors to be good people that could potentially be won over or have their view soften considerably, I choose to believe there are plenty of Americans just like them out there. So when someone likes to generalize and paint a whole segment of the population on the basis of an inability to understand or not come up with a better reason, that ain't all right with me. It's ignorance under the guise of tolerance while being intolerant. It's counterproductive.


I don't think I've directly accused anyone of being racist.

I'm not sure, other than maybe one post, that I've made a comment towards you in which you haven't been quoted in. I can't recall you ever saying something that would lead me to believe you had.


It's more the principle behind it.

I'm fine with people standing for something. I'm still standing. :)


Never said anything about silencing the opposition. Calling out the opposition for ill-founded arguments is completely fair game though.

Dissent. Ain't nothing wrong with it or a need to condone it. :tu


What stance have I taken though? All I've asked for is an argument that says we should move the mosque due to facts. For instance, there are already existings mosques in NY; have any of them been known to harbor terrorists? (To be honest, I think an argument like this would be quite tough, which goes towards my line of thinking that it's not a logically-based argument.)

Like I said, you haven't really been the target of much of what's been said. And any objection I've tried to relay leads more to unintended consequences and the center's perceived failure to do the "right" thing. Those unsaid words and actions I alluded to earlier in the post. The ones we all use in life to have as decent and cordial an environment as possible. Being a good neighbor, doing onto others and whatnot. They don't believe this community center is. It's their belief. It is what it is.


By arguing that they should build the mosque as proposed, you are arguing for the "right" thing and for being right.

Yes, but argue for doing the "right" thing, not those whom oppose are racist, Islamaphobic or idiots. It's about the endgame. Discourse is needed and necessary, but things still have to get done. You have to have the humility and patience to know that it's not about you and being "right," it's about making sure the "right" thing gets done.

Being right and doing the "right" thing are two separate things. So I'd ask what's more important: Telling someone they're wrong and your right (by any means necessary); or knowing what's "right" and doing everything in your power to make sure it gets done, even if you're never given the satisfaction of being acknowledged for doing so?

[Blake]

more jibberish

nothing new.

Great thread. :tu

[LnGrrrR]

When did they purchase it? I honestly don't know. But if they've had it before 9-11 that sure would be helpful to my argument.

They bought it in 2009, for what it's worth.


It's perfectly logical to them. They'll tell you again and again (I've had many a discussion on the topic) this project's desire and choice to build there was an insensitive and less-than-neighborly move/gesture.

So... their argument is that people are building the mosque to piss off people who went through 9/11. That doesn't seem very logical to me, but even granting that it might be "logical" in a sense, it certainly isn't based off facts.


Depends on whom you ask. I personally believe there will be unintended consequences whether this thing is built or not now. It's become too big of a topic and focal point. But even if it hadn't, I'm sure there still would have been extremists using this as some kind of recruitment tool or fuel to their cause. Shit, just look at it from their point of view. If you're a follower of the same Islam apposed by the perpetrators of 9-11, wouldn't you believe this to be great news, that a beacon of Islam was now proudly being displayed in a place their brethren reduced to rubble in its name?

I would think it would be much more of a selling point if it WASN'T allowed to be built there. "Look, the great and mighty America, they are afraid of Islam/Muslim peoples. They talk about religious freedom, and yet, force us to stop building our mosque."

I don't think we should determine policy based on what a few wackjobs might think. As you said, the people who are against us will twist it no matter what, so what difference does it make whether it's built or not in that regard?


nd since I know these particular objectors to be good people that could potentially be won over or have their view soften considerably, I choose to believe there are plenty of Americans just like them out there.

Can you see why this statement won't fly in an argument/debate though? YOU may know good people, but that does nothing for the argument, since none of us know them.

Not only that, but people can be good while still having irrational, hateful, etc etc beliefs.

All these "good people" who think it's offensive usually either can't explain why it's offensive or provide faulty reasoning. They conflate all Muslims with a few deranged ones, which is obviously non-sensical. (For instance, many Christians divorce their wives, does this mean that I should assume all Christians will eventually divorce?)


Being a good neighbor, doing onto others and whatnot. They don't believe this community center is. It's their belief. It is what it is.

It may be their belief, but that doesn't VALIDATE said belief. I'll provide a hypothetical: you're my friend, and I tell you I can fly if I flap my arms hard enough, and I plan to show you by jumping off a bridge. Wouldn't you correct my belief, tell me it's wrong? I should hope so!

I've yet to hear a logical reason for opposition. Most of the opposition relies on one or more of these arguments:

Terrorists will claim it as a victory/use it for recruitment! (So what, they'll claim it as victory if we do or don't build it)

It's offensive to 9/11 family members! (That may be the case, but it doesn't make logical sense... I'm very dubious of those who use "moral outrage" to try and shut things down)

It's too close/too big! (I don't see how making it smaller/more humble does anything to make it less offensive. If you're offended by the fact that it's there, what does it's size matter?)


Being right and doing the "right" thing are two separate things. So I'd ask what's more important: Telling someone they're wrong and your right (by any means necessary); or knowing what's "right" and doing everything in your power to make sure it gets done, even if you're never given the satisfaction of being acknowledged for doing so?

I disagree. I think you can do the right thing, and be right. It's about education.

[Mikesatx]

This issue has been beaten to death. But I'll add to it. One of the themes of defending the mosque is the idea that not all muslims should be characterized by the actions of a few. I am guessing that the majority of those who posted here are not Muslim. So your fight is not personal it is based on principal. As I mentioned earlier I agree with your argument. Do you defend the Tea Party under the same principal when others decry racist when there is no evidence? And even if evidence existed it would represent the opinion of the individual not the group.

[LnGrrrR]

Do you defend the Tea Party under the same principal when others decry racist when there is no evidence? And even if evidence existed it would represent the opinion of the individual not the group.

Good question. I'd say I'd defend the principles of the Tea Party much more if they actually used cogent arguments/examples and provided logical alternatives. All I've seen so far is a bunhc of people arguing that "government is too big" and "they're stealing our money" with limited talk of what to cut, and even less talk of after-effects of proposed cuts.

It could be self-bias though; tbh, I haven't bothered to read up on Tea Party platforms.

[Blake]

Do you defend the Tea Party under the same principal when others decry racist when there is no evidence? And even if evidence existed it would represent the opinion of the individual not the group.

Is there a specific example you are referring to?

[Mikesatx]

The NAACP thinks so. Post a thread with that question and you'll get an affirmative from DMX and Boutons.

[Wild Cobra]

I thought this was the last refuge for liberals:

AM 620 KPOJ, Portland's Progressive Talk Radio (http://www.620kpoj.com/main.html)

Lineup:

Monday

12a-3a Ring of Fire
3a-6a Bill Press
6a-9a Carl in the morning
9a-12p Thom Hartmann– Nationwide
12p-3p Ed Schutlz
3p-6p Randi Rhodes
6p-9p Norman Goldman
9p-12a Mike Malloy

Tuesday-Friday

12a-3a Alan Colmes
3a-6a Bill Press
6a-9a Carl in the morning
9a-12p Thom Hartmann– Nationwide
12p-3p Ed Schutlz
3p-6p Randi Rhodes
6p-9p Norman Goldman
9p-12a Mike Malloy

Saturday

12a-3a Alan Colmes
3a-6a Randi Rhodes
6a-9a Best of Bill Press
9a-12p Best of Stephanie Miller
12p-3p Ring of Fire
3p-6p Norman Goldman
6p-9p Ed Schultz
9p-12a Randi Rhodes

Sunday

12a-4a Mike Malloy
4a-5a ABC Perspective
5a-7a Keep Hope Alive with The Rev. Jesse Jackson
7a-8a KPOJ Public Affairs
8a-1p Dr. Dean Edell
1p-4p Best of Alan Colmes
4p-7p Ed Schultz
7p-10p Randi Rhodes
10p-12a Thom Hartmann - NAtionwide

Listen Live (http://www.620kpoj.com/mediaplayer/?station=KPOJ-AM&action=listenlive&channel_title=)

[ChumpDumper]

The NAACP thinks so. Post a thread with that question and you'll get an affirmative from DMX and Boutons.Great. I'll say they aren't all racists.

Anything else?

[Blackjack]

nothing new.

PWNED!


Great thread. :tu

I knew we could find something to agree on! :elephant


So... their argument is that people are building the mosque to piss off people who went through 9/11. That doesn't seem very logical to me, but even granting that it might be "logical" in a sense, it certainly isn't based off facts.

No. That's why it's "unintended." Their (Park51) intentions may be well and good and without any sinister undertones but the fact that they decided to build the mosque so near to Ground Zero, leaves for the very real and distinct possibility that the extremists will use its existence as propaganda. I realize some would like to flat out dismiss that notion but it's seems a pretty logical conclusion and the conventional wisdom of most a terrorism expert -- just look at what this little piece of shit church caused with their planned Quran burning.


I would think it would be much more of a selling point if it WASN'T allowed to be built there. "Look, the great and mighty America, they are afraid of Islam/Muslim peoples. They talk about religious freedom, and yet, force us to stop building our mosque."

Like I said, at this point, either way it will be used to further their (extremists) cause -- if it's built, it's proof of their "just" cause; if it's not, the evil, oppressive, Zionist West strikes again. It's a win-win for these guys now that this community center's become the huge story it has.


I don't think we should determine policy based on what a few wackjobs might think. As you said, the people who are against us will twist it no matter what, so what difference does it make whether it's built or not in that regard?

The people I know that are against it are just that: against it. I haven't heard one of them say they didn't think the project wouldn't be completed. They just don't approve of the way Park51 chose to go about the whole thing, namely the location.


Can you see why this statement won't fly in an argument/debate though? YOU may know good people, but that does nothing for the argument, since none of us know them.

It may not fly for a message board argument but it wasn't stated to argue. It was simply a fact known to me and the basis of my objection to lumping all whom oppose into a racist, bigoted category.

We all have opinions and beliefs based off our own experiences, this was one of mine. Whether you choose to believe me or not is up to you. All I can say is I don't make a habit of getting into these long drawn-out debates and I can't say I've ever done so in someone else's defense or whom had an opposing view from myself. I'm not sure what reason anyone would have to believe I'd make up some shit like this, besides Nancy who believes there's some kind of reason to be afraid of a message board. Weird -- maybe koriwhat's gonna find my address and come attack me when I'm sleeping or some shit, though. I could just be naive.


Not only that, but people can be good while still having irrational, hateful, etc etc beliefs.

I disagree. That's quite the stretch for "good" people if they have hateful beliefs. Cordial and unassuming maybe, but not good.


All these "good people" who think it's offensive usually either can't explain why it's offensive or provide faulty reasoning. They conflate all Muslims with a few deranged ones, which is obviously non-sensical. (For instance, many Christians divorce their wives, does this mean that I should assume all Christians will eventually divorce?)

Who's ALL? Because good people are good people. Views and opinions may differ, some will even be uninformed, naive or flat-out ignorant, but those are people that can be informed and won over with a little patience and hard work. Let's not forget there are plenty of people that share our belief that this community center should be built and are every bit as hateful, ignorant, naive or whatever else you could attribute to a portion of the opposition, so let's not pretend doing the "right" thing is always done for the "right" reasons -- there are people for this mosque that believe we deserved 9-11; Americans.


It may be their belief, but that doesn't VALIDATE said belief. I'll provide a hypothetical: you're my friend, and I tell you I can fly if I flap my arms hard enough, and I plan to show you by jumping off a bridge. Wouldn't you correct my belief, tell me it's wrong? I should hope so!

But if you honestly believe extremists will be bolstered by the development, some bit of rhetoric/propaganda gained from this mosque's building will find its way to a disenfranchised youth that will become the next soldier in Jihad -- a potential threat to be the next suicide bomber or Al-Qaeda leader -- is it really equatable to trying to be Superman after watching Chris Reeves do his thing?

The objection isn't about this center harboring terrorists or equating the developers as terrorists, it's erring on the side of caution ... not taking any chances that anything bad could come to the memory of those that lost their lives or from those that would gladly take more in the name of Islam, using this mosque as the symbolism of conquered soil.


Terrorists will claim it as a victory/use it for recruitment! (So what, they'll claim it as victory if we do or don't build it)

I agree, especially now that it's become the focal point it has. But that doesn't take away the resentment a good amount of objectors have for this community center putting them in that position. The thinking being: 'You build a few blocks away and that's never even an option and this is never even a debate/discussion.'


It's offensive to 9/11 family members! (That may be the case, but it doesn't make logical sense... I'm very dubious of those who use "moral outrage" to try and shut things down)

If the that's the only issue and not just a part of the reasoning -- the sensitivity to the victims of 9-11 -- I've gotta believe they're either; a.)the lemmings; b.) Islamaphobic or; c.) racist/intolerant. You're shit-out-of-luck with those that fall into the C category but A could be won over and there's hope for B -- knowledge and interaction can do wonders for fear.


It's too close/too big! (I don't see how making it smaller/more humble does anything to make it less offensive. If you're offended by the fact that it's there, what does it's size matter?)

Beats the hell out of me. :lol


I disagree. I think you can do the right thing, and be right. It's about education.

Of course you can. That wasn't my point.

Too often people want be correct at any cost. They have to be rewarded and acknowledged for it, so they do whatever it takes -- dragging others in the mud, being an ass, vindictive, or simply looking to embarrass, humiliate or annihilate the person wrong or in the "wrong."

Being and knowing your right or in the "right" should be enough. And if you really care about what's "right" and doing what is "right," you know that it often times takes a little nudge, convincing or enlightenment to get others to help you along the way.

If your first notion is to look for the worst in people, ask people to prove a negative, throw out extreme rhetoric (racist) that will only prove to be a sharp stick to those that could be won over, where's that getting you? Maybe you're right but how much solace do you take in that when the "right" things aren't getting done because of a toxic atmosphere that's now been created -- people don't want to come over to your side of the issue because words like racist won't soon be forgotten. Soon (and it's like this now politically) it's not a matter of doing the right thing but making sure the people you believe to have wronged you in the past don't have their way. Do you honestly think Republicans and Democrats won't do the same damn things they're doing now, just vice-versa if Republicans gain back control?

What's "right" is "right." But there's both a right and wrong way of getting the "right" things done. Being correct just isn't enough, it never has.

[Blake]

You're quite the illiterate, ignorant e-thug, Nancy....


Oh, then it's just that reading comprehension thing, Nancy. It's all good. I don't really need your answers -- you and I both know they wouldn't favor your position, Nancy.


I wasn't aware you and Blake were in full agreement, only that somehow the semantics of one's morality became the topic of discussion, which was completely and utterly off the mark and inconsequential to the OP that started all of this fun.


PWNED!


I knew we could find something to agree on! :elephant

Yes, I agree you've been pwned.


No. That's why it's "unintended." Their (Park51) intentions may be well and good and without any sinister undertones but the fact that they decided to build the mosque so near to Ground Zero, leaves for the very real and distinct possibility that the extremists will use its existence as propaganda.

Just how far away from Ground Zero should Park 51 be built in order to ease your fears of possible extremists using it?


I realize some would like to flat out dismiss that notion but it's seems a pretty logical conclusion and the conventional wisdom of most a terrorism expert -- just look at what this little piece of shit church caused with their planned Quran burning.

What terrorism expert? Give a name.


Like I said, at this point, either way it will be used to further their (extremists) cause -- if it's built, it's proof of their "just" cause; if it's not, the evil, oppressive, Zionist West strikes again. It's a win-win for these guys now that this community center's become the huge story it has.

So you are all for it being built.......but you are afraid of the bad guys (extremists) taking it over.

You really don't know what Islamophobia is.

You really don't know how Islamophobic you are.


The people I know that are against it are just that: against it. I haven't heard one of them say they didn't think the project wouldn't be completed. They just don't approve of the way Park51 chose to go about the whole thing, namely the location.

You are all for it, but you are afraid.

You've made it perfectly clear.


We all have opinions and beliefs based off our own experiences, this was one of mine. Whether you choose to believe me or not is up to you.

I believe you when you say you are afraid of the extremists.



I'm not sure what reason anyone would have to believe I'd make up some shit like this, besides Nancy who believes there's some kind of reason to be afraid of a message board.

I believe you when you say you have "friends" that oppose the community center being built.

I also believe you are too much of a pussy to tell them off because you are afraid of it being built yourself.


Weird -- maybe koriwhat's gonna find my address and come attack me when I'm sleeping or some shit, though. I could just be naive.

Why would he do that? Do you have calf tattoos that are better than his?


Who's ALL? Because good people are good people. Views and opinions may differ, some will even be uninformed, naive or flat-out ignorant, but those are people that can be informed and won over with a little patience and hard work.

Na, apparently the information is not getting through to you.


Let's not forget there are plenty of people that share our belief that this community center should be built and are every bit as hateful, ignorant, naive or whatever else you could attribute to a portion of the opposition, so let's not pretend doing the "right" thing is always done for the "right" reasons -- there are people for this mosque that believe we deserved 9-11; Americans.

Is the mosque being built for the wrong reason?

Please prove it.


But if you honestly believe extremists will be bolstered by the development, some bit of rhetoric/propaganda gained from this mosque's building will find its way to a disenfranchised youth that will become the next soldier in Jihad -- a potential threat to be the next suicide bomber or Al-Qaeda leader -- is it really equatable to trying to be Superman after watching Chris Reeves do his thing?

Is this your thinking or your "friends"?


The objection isn't about this center harboring terrorists or equating the developers as terrorists, it's erring on the side of caution ... not taking any chances that anything bad could come to the memory of those that lost their lives or from those that would gladly take more in the name of Islam, using this mosque as the symbolism of conquered soil.

You've already made it clear how Islamophobic you are.

Constantly repeating this point won't suddenly make you unafraid.


I agree, especially now that it's become the focal point it has. But that doesn't take away the resentment a good amount of objectors have for this community center putting them in that position. The thinking being: 'You build a few blocks away and that's never even an option and this is never even a debate/discussion.'

How many feet away from Ground Zero should they build it to avoid any opposition?

Give a specific number please.


If the that's the only issue and not just a part of the reasoning -- the sensitivity to the victims of 9-11 -- I've gotta believe they're either; a.)the lemmings; b.) Islamaphobic or; c.) racist/intolerant. You're shit-out-of-luck with those that fall into the C category but A could be won over and there's hope for B -- knowledge and interaction can do wonders for fear.

Yes, you should stop being b.)


Too often people want be correct at any cost. They have to be rewarded and acknowledged for it, so they do whatever it takes -- dragging others in the mud, being an ass, vindictive, or simply looking to embarrass, humiliate or annihilate the person wrong or in the "wrong."

Being and knowing your right or in the "right" should be enough. And if you really care about what's "right" and doing what is "right," you know that it often times takes a little nudge, convincing or enlightenment to get others to help you along the way.

If your first notion is to look for the worst in people, ask people to prove a negative, throw out extreme rhetoric (racist) that will only prove to be a sharp stick to those that could be won over, where's that getting you? Maybe you're right but how much solace do you take in that when the "right" things aren't getting done because of a toxic atmosphere that's now been created -- people don't want to come over to your side of the issue because words like racist won't soon be forgotten. Soon (and it's like this now politically) it's not a matter of doing the right thing but making sure the people you believe to have wronged you in the past don't have their way. Do you honestly think Republicans and Democrats won't do the same damn things they're doing now, just vice-versa if Republicans gain back control?

What's "right" is "right." But there's both a right and wrong way of getting the "right" things done. Being correct just isn't enough, it never has.

more jibberish.

although it hasn't been good for you, this has been a great thread. :tu

[Winehole23]

Of topical interest:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/opinion/08mosque.html?_r=1&hp

[Winehole23]

LNGR basically horsewhipped Blackjack in one or two posts. He obviously prefers the childish flame war with Blake to the thoughtful, reasoned discussion he claims to be promoting between "good people" who disagree.

[Blackjack]

More illiterate, comprehensively-challenged "jibberish."

This has not been a good thread for you, Nancy. :td


LNGR basically horsewhipped Blackjack in one or two posts. He obviously prefers the childish flame war with Blake to the thoughtful, reasoned discussion he claims to be promoting between "good people" who disagree.

And what exactly would you be referring to? Maybe I missed something in between Nancy's nonsense but what exactly has there been for me to get "horsewhipped" on? My opinion that there are people in opposition that are not racist or Islamaphobic?

Are you in the "everyone-in-opposition-is-a-racist/Islamaphobe" camp?

[Winehole23]

I'm not.

You missed something in between. You were having too much fun with your silly flame war to notice LNGR's thoughtful response to you.

[Blackjack]

I'm not.

You missed something in between. You were having too much fun with your silly flame war to notice LNGR's thoughtful response to you.

Maybe so. Admittedly, though the departure in form, this silly little flame war has been fun.

If you know the particular thoughtful response (or if LngrrR wants to re-post it) I'll be glad to respond to it with an equally thoughtful response -- it'd be nice change of pace from Nancy.

[Winehole23]

It's within the last few pages, if you really care so much.

[Blackjack]

It's within the last few pages, if you really care so much.

Not so much but if I've missed something that deserves a genuine response and isn't just more of the ideological divide nonsense (that can't be bridged), I'd have no problem addressing it -- I'm in and out a lot so it's easy to lose track of shit in these long threads, and I actually like LnGrrrR.

[Winehole23]

No problem carrying on day after day, page after page with Blake, but no time or inclination to find and respond to a recent post by someone you actually like. Telling.

[Blackjack]

Well aren't you the sharpsticker. :lol

If you've missed something, there's no time or inclination involved. But I'll go back and see if there was something I feel I haven't addressed in the last 15 pages when I have a chance to read and give a full response -- that's why I was hoping you remembered the actual post. To save me some time and sifting, and to make sure I responded to the particular one you're speaking of.

Thanks for the help, ass. :lol

[Blake]

This has not been a good thread for you, Nancy. :td


It has been an entertaining thread for me. :tu

You have been proven to be an Islamophobe, an illterate and you melt down into troll mode when it doesn't go your way. Not a good thread for you. :td

[LnGrrrR]

No. That's why it's "unintended." Their (Park51) intentions may be well and good and without any sinister undertones but the fact that they decided to build the mosque so near to Ground Zero, leaves for the very real and distinct possibility that the extremists will use its existence as propaganda. I realize some would like to flat out dismiss that notion but it's seems a pretty logical conclusion and the conventional wisdom of most a terrorism expert -- just look at what this little piece of shit church caused with their planned Quran burning.

Have you asked these people whether forcing the mosque to move might ALSO give terrorists propaganda to work with? That would be the next logical question.


Like I said, at this point, either way it will be used to further their (extremists) cause -- if it's built, it's proof of their "just" cause; if it's not, the evil, oppressive, Zionist West strikes again. It's a win-win for these guys now that this community center's become the huge story it has.

Note: I personally don't think it's a win/win for the terrorists, or I wouldn't be arguing the fact. Do the "good people" you refer to think it's a "win/win" either way? If so, why do they argue the mosque should be moved?


The people I know that are against it are just that: against it. I haven't heard one of them say they didn't think the project wouldn't be completed. They just don't approve of the way Park51 chose to go about the whole thing, namely the location.

Not approving, and wanting it to be moved, can be mutually exclusive things. I can think that somebody did something in a negative way, but still think they should do it.

Do these good people think the project should remain where it is, despite the "insensitivity" they've generated? (I put insensitivity in quote marks, because the only way it could be considered insensitive is if you conflate radical terrorists with mainstream Muslims, which is pretty obviously stupid. Yes, there are alot of stupid people.)


It may not fly for a message board argument but it wasn't stated to argue. It was simply a fact known to me and the basis of my objection to lumping all whom oppose into a racist, bigoted category.

Would you prefer the term "ignorant" or "uninformed" or "illogical"? :lol In my mind, conflating the actions of a small group of people and then magnifying that to an entire group of religious practitioners is just faulty reasoning. Does it work for smaller subsets? Occasionally. But using the actions of 19 people to try to predict the capabilities/mindsets of hundreds of thousands of Muslims is ridiculous on its face.

Do these good people realize how offensive it probably is for a Muslim to be grouped with these radical terrorists? What if people were proposing a new Christian church be moved because it was too close to an abortion clinic? (After all, Christians have been known to invoke God's principles when they attack these places.)


We all have opinions and beliefs based off our own experiences, this was one of mine. Whether you choose to believe me or not is up to you. All I can say is I don't make a habit of getting into these long drawn-out debates and I can't say I've ever done so in someone else's defense or whom had an opposing view from myself. I'm not sure what reason anyone would have to believe I'd make up some shit like this, besides Nancy who believes there's some kind of reason to be afraid of a message board. Weird -- maybe koriwhat's gonna find my address and come attack me when I'm sleeping or some shit, though. I could just be naive.

Have I ever stated that you don't believe these people are good? Heck, even I've stated that these people might be good; it just does no good saying "They're good" and leaving it at that.

I don't think you quite understand that I am attacking your argument, not you. The two are distinct entities, are they not? And since you are arguing in place of these "good people" who obviously aren't here, you are their spokesman.



I disagree. That's quite the stretch for "good" people if they have hateful beliefs. Cordial and unassuming maybe, but not good.

Really? Gandhi was racist. Our Founding Fathers approved of slavery. What about Japanese Internment Camps during WWII? Churchill was all about pushing imperialism. etc etc

If you're eliminating that has irrational views towards a group, or hateful views towards a group, that good category is severely restricted.


Who's ALL?

The "good people" you keep referring to.


Because good people are good people. Views and opinions may differ, some will even be uninformed, naive or flat-out ignorant, but those are people that can be informed and won over with a little patience and hard work. Let's not forget there are plenty of people that share our belief that this community center should be built and are every bit as hateful, ignorant, naive or whatever else you could attribute to a portion of the opposition, so let's not pretend doing the "right" thing is always done for the "right" reasons -- there are people for this mosque that believe we deserved 9-11; Americans.

You act like there's some category that certain people can be placed into which makes their actions and beliefs irreproachable. Of course, some people could believe that the community center should be built because they want a place to play hoops. Is that a "right" reason? Probably not. That doesn't change the validity of my argument though.

If you want the mosque to be built there because it stands for tolerance, diversity, etc etc, I absolutely believe it's doing the "right" thing for the "right" reason. Why else would I argue for it?


But if you honestly believe extremists will be bolstered by the development, some bit of rhetoric/propaganda gained from this mosque's building will find its way to a disenfranchised youth that will become the next soldier in Jihad -- a potential threat to be the next suicide bomber or Al-Qaeda leader -- is it really equatable to trying to be Superman after watching Chris Reeves do his thing?

If you honestly believe that building a mosque there will provide more propaganda than forcing Muslims to build in an area FURTHER from Ground Zero, because they are perceived as less American and therefore not given full religious tolerance, then yes, it's about as crazy. It's also crazy to think that terrorists won't spin it either way, making that argument moot.


The objection isn't about this center harboring terrorists or equating the developers as terrorists, it's erring on the side of caution ... not taking any chances that anything bad could come to the memory of those that lost their lives or from those that would gladly take more in the name of Islam, using this mosque as the symbolism of conquered soil.

You're using what's called Pascal's Wager... which is a logical fallacy. Pascal's Wager goes like this... why not believe in God, since if we're right, we go to Heaven, and if we're wrong, then no harm no foul! If you want to see why it doesn't make sense, check it out on wikipedia.

That's what your above statement is: why not move the mosque, just in case it's used as a negative symbol. But the argument ignores all the consequences that might arise from moving the mosque, brushing them away as if they were lint.


I agree, especially now that it's become the focal point it has. But that doesn't take away the resentment a good amount of objectors have for this community center putting them in that position. The thinking being: 'You build a few blocks away and that's never even an option and this is never even a debate/discussion.'

What about the thinking, "If you would've just accepted us buying this property and building it, then this is never even a debate/discussion"? Of course, it's asking alot of people to look at their own thoughts/argument critically as their opponents.

[Blackjack]

It has been an entertaining thread for me. :tu

I respect that you can laugh at yourself, Nancy. :)


You have been proven to be an Islamophobe

Have I, Nancy? Can you prove that with any actual facts, Nancy?,


an illterate and you melt down into troll mode when it doesn't go your way.

Says Nancy, the person still responding to posts aimed at someone else. Says, Nancy, the person who's obviously projecting an image of tolerance for a lack of his own -- the shame just too much to bear.

Oh, and you don't melt down into troll mode. You troll people like yourself because it's fun and the only way to deal with a Nancy. Jolly good times. :D


Have you asked these people whether forcing the mosque to move might ALSO give terrorists propaganda to work with? That would be the next logical question.

Note: I personally don't think it's a win/win for the terrorists, or I wouldn't be arguing the fact. Do the "good people" you refer to think it's a "win/win" either way? If so, why do they argue the mosque should be moved?

Not approving, and wanting it to be moved, can be mutually exclusive things. I can think that somebody did something in a negative way, but still think they should do it.

Do these good people think the project should remain where it is, despite the "insensitivity" they've generated? (I put insensitivity in quote marks, because the only way it could be considered insensitive is if you conflate radical terrorists with mainstream Muslims, which is pretty obviously stupid. Yes, there are alot of stupid people.)

Would you prefer the term "ignorant" or "uninformed" or "illogical"? :lol In my mind, conflating the actions of a small group of people and then magnifying that to an entire group of religious practitioners is just faulty reasoning. Does it work for smaller subsets? Occasionally. But using the actions of 19 people to try to predict the capabilities/mindsets of hundreds of thousands of Muslims is ridiculous on its face.

Do these good people realize how offensive it probably is for a Muslim to be grouped with these radical terrorists? What if people were proposing a new Christian church be moved because it was too close to an abortion clinic? (After all, Christians have been known to invoke God's principles when they attack these places.)

Have I ever stated that you don't believe these people are good? Heck, even I've stated that these people might be good; it just does no good saying "They're good" and leaving it at that.

I don't think you quite understand that I am attacking your argument, not you. The two are distinct entities, are they not? And since you are arguing in place of these "good people" who obviously aren't here, you are their spokesman.


Really? Gandhi was racist. Our Founding Fathers approved of slavery. What about Japanese Internment Camps during WWII? Churchill was all about pushing imperialism. etc etc

If you're eliminating that has irrational views towards a group, or hateful views towards a group, that good category is severely restricted.



The "good people" you keep referring to.



You act like there's some category that certain people can be placed into which makes their actions and beliefs irreproachable. Of course, some people could believe that the community center should be built because they want a place to play hoops. Is that a "right" reason? Probably not. That doesn't change the validity of my argument though.

If you want the mosque to be built there because it stands for tolerance, diversity, etc etc, I absolutely believe it's doing the "right" thing for the "right" reason. Why else would I argue for it?



If you honestly believe that building a mosque there will provide more propaganda than forcing Muslims to build in an area FURTHER from Ground Zero, because they are perceived as less American and therefore not given full religious tolerance, then yes, it's about as crazy. It's also crazy to think that terrorists won't spin it either way, making that argument moot.



You're using what's called Pascal's Wager... which is a logical fallacy. Pascal's Wager goes like this... why not believe in God, since if we're right, we go to Heaven, and if we're wrong, then no harm no foul! If you want to see why it doesn't make sense, check it out on wikipedia.

That's what your above statement is: why not move the mosque, just in case it's used as a negative symbol. But the argument ignores all the consequences that might arise from moving the mosque, brushing them away as if they were lint.



What about the thinking, "If you would've just accepted us buying this property and building it, then this is never even a debate/discussion"? Of course, it's asking alot of people to look at their own thoughts/argument critically as their opponents.

A lot of head nodding on my part, LnGrrrR. A lot I find myself in agreement with -- and the first part about asking them to move the mosque at this point is something I have actually brought up, and most agree with me that it could be used for extremist rhetoric as well.

To touch on a couple of other points, I don't believe our Founding Fathers or Ghandi would be perceived or actually be the same type of people -- with regards to what you mentioned -- had they been here in the present. It's a different time and a different place. We're all a product of our surroundings and environment, to some degree, and the type of things being done, felt and said back then, were the norm for their day -- as reprehensible of some of that "norm" was back then.

If you're a person in present day that spews hate with racist rhetoric and makes a point of practicing intolerant/ignorant actions, it's just a whole different animal. There's just no way of saying someone's "good" if they're harboring those kinds of feelings and beliefs. So while I understand where you're coming from, I just can't draw that analogy. Not as it pertains to my view on this particular topic.

The only thing that's become amusing from your posts is the condescension I'm reading when it comes to "good people" or whatnot. I just have a hard time understanding the fervor in which a pretty damn benign point of view and OP has become as contentious as this.

Simply stated (as well as possible), the debates with my friends and family came to fruition once this whole story became the hot-button issue it is now. So what happened before then or how much they really cared before then, I couldn't really tell you. And that makes a difference in this:

When you say Islamic extremists will or could stand to gain any kind of recruiting tool or propaganda to further their cause now -- whether it be from building it, not building it or moving it -- it's probably a pretty safe bet to say that not one -- but all three -- of those things will or probably could. Once this issue became the hot topic it did it was inevitable it'd find its way into and extremist talking point in some way or fashion. That's my opinion, at least (and I know it's shared by many in and out of the "know"). So it's almost if we're arguing from two different plains.

I simply called people that know nothing but talking points and look to dismiss any-and-all opposition as racists or bigots at the drop of a hat, lemmings. That's all I said. I believe them to be ignorant people and counterproductive to getting things -- the "right" things -- done. I'm not sure how anyone can honestly disagree with that if they're not one themselves (and that's directed at you, LnGrrrR, or anyone else that doesn't recognize those actions as their own -- I feel almost forced to mention that given Nancy's predilection to respond and read into posts not aimed at him).

Bottom line, when this topic was broached, it was a HUGE story. That changes things. And the dissenting views I've mostly come across were simply from a resentment that Park51 didn't err on the side of caution when it came to this project from the start. No matter what happens from this point moving forward, that resentment will be there -- when it comes to the those that lost their lives on 9-11 and those that could potentially lose their lives at the hands of the same kind of extremists, it's a pretty sensitive topic. Park51 is perceived to have taken an absolutely unnecessary risk deciding to build near Ground Zero.

That's not a racist or intolerant view, IMO. In reality, it's hard not to say deciding to build there wasn't taking some kind of unnecessary risk or not erring on the side of caution. The motives of the people I've defended keep coming into question, but why not the motives of those that decided to build there in the first place -- was that the most sensitive and erring-on-the-side-of-caution-move they could have done? I'd be disingenuous saying I believe so.

I just happen to believe you can't allow extenuating circumstances like that to dictate the way you do business and run your country/life. You do the "right" things -- even when it's not convenient -- and you build consensus whenever possible to make sure the "right" things get done -- you don't turn off the other side of an argument by shouting racist and bigot at the first or most recent contention.

The mosque isn't up for a vote, last I checked. And I simply don't have a problem with the kind of dissent I've tried to relay. Is that really all that outlandish of a take? (And I know you're not attacking me, but the argument, LnGrrrR.)

[LnGrrrR]

A lot of head nodding on my part, LnGrrrR. A lot I find myself in agreement with -- and the first part about asking them to move the mosque at this point is something I have actually brought up, and most agree with me that it could be used for extremist rhetoric as well.

If it's the case that it would be used for extremist rhetoric in either situation, then that defeats the purpose of that argument, right? Do the people who acknowledge that it could be used as propaganda either way recognize this fact, and then alter their beliefs/views accordingly? Or do they just come up with new reasons to say the mosque should be moved?


To touch on a couple of other points, I don't believe our Founding Fathers or Ghandi would be perceived or actually be the same type of people -- with regards to what you mentioned -- had they been here in the present. It's a different time and a different place. We're all a product of our surroundings and environment, to some degree, and the type of things being done, felt and said back then, were the norm for their day -- as reprehensible of some of that "norm" was back then.

Yes, but people today who believe these irrational and/or hateful thoughts are as much a product of their surroundings/environments/etc as the Founding Fathers/Gandhi/etc. That's why they can still be good people but have blind spots, because they were raised that way, are ignorant, doesn't recognize their own logical fallacies, or any other number of things. That doesn't mean they're bad people.


If you're a person in present day that spews hate with racist rhetoric and makes a point of practicing intolerant/ignorant actions, it's just a whole different animal. There's just no way of saying someone's "good" if they're harboring those kinds of feelings and beliefs. So while I understand where you're coming from, I just can't draw that analogy. Not as it pertains to my view on this particular topic.

Do you not believe that someone can have racist thoughts without spewing hate? I'll give you an example... people who think Asians are bad drivers. That's racism, but it doesn't mean the person is out there on the sidewalk asking for another Tianamen Square Massacre. Ya dig?


The only thing that's become amusing from your posts is the condescension I'm reading when it comes to "good people" or whatnot. I just have a hard time understanding the fervor in which a pretty damn benign point of view and OP has become as contentious as this.

Because the "good people" are a stand-in. They obviously can not answer for themselves on this message board, and so you fill in for them. When you say, "I believe as you do, but my friends think X"... well, that doesn't do much good for the purposes of this debate, does it? It also assumes that 1) they are good people, which isn't necessarily established and 2) assumes those good people, according to your definition, are relatively free from bias, which definitely isn't established either. Can you see now why I have an issue with these "good people"? :)

It's on you to question the "good people" that you know, and ask them why they hold these beliefs, as I certainly can't do it.


I simply called people that know nothing but talking points and look to dismiss any-and-all opposition as racists or bigots at the drop of a hat, lemmings. That's all I said. I believe them to be ignorant people and counterproductive to getting things -- the "right" things -- done. I'm not sure how anyone can honestly disagree with that if they're not one themselves (and that's directed at you, LnGrrrR, or anyone else that doesn't recognize those actions as their own -- I feel almost forced to mention that given Nancy's predilection to respond and read into posts not aimed at him).

Here's where your "good people" become problematic. Because, as you stated above, you don't think "good people" can be biased/racist in this day and age. Because you think this, you automatically disqualify "good people" from racism because they're not overtly racist.

What I feel though, is that good people CAN have bias/racism, and it can color their views. You've stated before that these good people have agreed that whether the mosque moves or not, terrorists and anti-American supporters will spin it either way.

Having admitted this, logically, if that is the only criteria that one is using to believe that the mosque should be moved, then they no longer have a logical impetus to support the idea that the mosque should be moved. Follow me?

I think you'll find that most of your "good people" will find a NEW reason to want to move the mosque. They can't answer this, of course, but you should try to ask some of them and see if they rewire their arguments to some new topic.


Bottom line, when this topic was broached, it was a HUGE story. That changes things. And the dissenting views I've mostly come across were simply from a resentment that Park51 didn't err on the side of caution when it came to this project from the start.

Here's the thing though... why would this have to err on the side of caution if it WASN'T a big deal? You're saying that they should have predicted in advance that the building of this mosque was a big deal, but the plans have been in process for awhile. Heck, the wife of one of the owners even went on the Laura Ingraham show. It wasn't until conservatives realized they could conflate "radical terrorists" with "Muslims in NY city" that it blew out of proportion.


No matter what happens from this point moving forward, that resentment will be there -- when it comes to the those that lost their lives on 9-11 and those that could potentially lose their lives at the hands of the same kind of extremists, it's a pretty sensitive topic. Park51 is perceived to have taken an absolutely unnecessary risk deciding to build near Ground Zero.

And why is that perception there? Because people conflate "Muslim" with "radical terrorist". Again, do we think that churches shouldn't be built near abortion clinics? Of course not, because it's much more acceptable to stereotype/diminish Muslims as the dreaded "other".


That's not a racist or intolerant view, IMO. In reality, it's hard not to say deciding to build there wasn't taking some kind of unnecessary risk or not erring on the side of caution. The motives of the people I've defended keep coming into question, but why not the motives of those that decided to build there in the first place -- was that the most sensitive and erring-on-the-side-of-caution-move they could have done? I'd be disingenuous saying I believe so.

See the conflation? Why should the builders be sensitive about building a mosque for Muslims? Because, in your eyes and many others, SOME crazy Muslims were responsible for 9/11. Do the majority of Muslims support their actions? Of course not. And yet, because they pray to a God that the majority of our country doesn't, they are lumped together and all looked at in suspicion. The same happens for minorities... all Mexicans are suspected of being illegal immigrants, blacks cause more crimes, etc etc.


The mosque isn't up for a vote, last I checked.

But it's not simply about the mosque at this point. It's about religious tolerance, diversity, etc etc. And everyone arguing whether the mosque SHOULD be built there or not is debating different viewpoints, and using the mosque as a proxy.


And I simply don't have a problem with the kind of dissent I've tried to relay. Is that really all that outlandish of a take? (And I know you're not attacking me, but the argument, LnGrrrR.)

I do have a problem with it, personally. People who want the mosque to move provide no VALID REASONING for their arguments... which indicates that their argument is off pure emotional reasoning. What emotion would cause someone to support the movement of a mosque? Fear that terrorists will use it as propaganda. Fear of the other. Etc etc.

There are lots of "good people" around the nation that have this poor logic running through their head, and while they may not know it, the collective "otherization" of Muslim peoples in America damages our reputation greatly. The movement of a mosque is just bricks and mortar on its face, but to the outside world, it's a battle to see if America will practice what it preaches (religious tolerance), or whether it will force the others to move to a more "acceptable" area. Can't have Muslims too close to the Ground Zero site now, can we?

[Blake]

I respect that you can laugh at yourself, Nancy. :)

I am very much laughing at you, your Islamophobia, and your "good people friends". :lol


Have I, Nancy? Can you prove that with any actual facts, Nancy?

Yes, pussy:


No. That's why it's "unintended." Their (Park51) intentions may be well and good and without any sinister undertones but the fact that they decided to build the mosque so near to Ground Zero, leaves for the very real and distinct possibility that the extremists will use its existence as propaganda.

You are clearly afraid.


Oh, and you don't melt down into troll mode. You troll people like yourself because it's fun and the only way to deal with a Nancy. Jolly good times. :D

I troll people like myself? That makes no sense.

Instead of getting shorter and to the point, your posts are getting longer and even more redundant.

And now that LnGrrrR is horsewhipping your already red ass, I don't believe you are having a jolly good time.

:tu

:corn:

[Yonivore]

You are clearly afraid.
Why is that fear? Why not pragmatism? After all, there are already Muslims abroad -- who disregard the Imam's claim -- and see it as a Victory Mosque.

It's an observation, not a fear. I don't think Imam Rauf can prevent radical Muslims from co-opting his "interfaith bridge-building" in an effort to radicalize the place and make it what they wish it to be.

[ChumpDumper]

Why is that fear? Why not pragmatism? After all, there are already Muslims abroad -- who disregard the Imam's claim -- and see it as a Victory Mosque.

It's an observation, not a fear. I don't think Imam Rauf can prevent radical Muslims from co-opting his "interfaith bridge-building" in an effort to radicalize the place and make it what they wish it to be.So it's resignation to fear.

Nice.

Pussy.

[Blake]

Why is that fear? Why not pragmatism? After all, there are already Muslims abroad -- who disregard the Imam's claim -- and see it as a Victory Mosque.

Pragmatism? :lol

Now that these "Muslims abroad" have declared victory with this mosque, what do you believe will be their next practical step?


It's an observation, not a fear.

So you have observed extremists using this mosque as propaganda?

What are you afraid that these extremists might do?


I don't think Imam Rauf can prevent radical Muslims from co-opting his "interfaith bridge-building" in an effort to radicalize the place and make it what they wish it to be.

So you are afraid of radical Muslims co-opting the building.

Is this fear based on a real observation?

If so, please provide the date, time and place this event occurred.

Thanks.

[Winehole23]

Still waiting for Blackjack to address the points made by a poster he allegedly likes. So far he's ducked LNGR almost completely. All he did was repeat himself again.

[Winehole23]

...that's why I was hoping you remembered the actual post. To save me some time and sifting, and to make sure I responded to the particular one you're speaking of.

Thanks for the help, ass. :lolJust back click a few pages. Your multiquoting of Blake, surely, has acquainted you with the procedure.

[Winehole23]

Blackjack clearly holds his own in a name calling contest but just as clearly -- so far -- prefers to ignore reasoned argumentation from disputants of goodwill who already enjoy his (avowed) affection.

[Winehole23]

I say this in spite of Blackjack's apparent response to LNGR. It is a non-response IMO. It's more like stubborn repetition than an actual reply.

[Winehole23]

Much like his colloquy with Blake.

[Winehole23]

(burp)

[Winehole23]

Blackjack not only does not respect those who disagree with him, he barely even acknowledges them. He just repeats himself over and over again, like his main adversary in this thread.

For evidence of this opinion, just back click through the last 10 pages or so.

[Winehole23]

Disclosure: I am mildly biased in favor of the broader point Blackjack seems to be making over and over again. Irrationality isn't necessarily a moral or ethical fault.

But I don't believe Blackjack's bs on this point.

[Winehole23]

(burp)

[Blake]

Disclosure: I am mildly biased in favor of the broader point Blackjack seems to be making over and over again. Irrationality isn't necessarily a moral or ethical fault.

But I don't believe Blackjack's bs on this point.

What is the irrationality based on?

Blackjack has been claiming that the builders face a "moral dilemma" throughout the thread. The moral dilemma is clearly not on the builder.

The contradictions in this thread are so numerous, I don't think he knows what his point or his stance really is.


Krauthammer's both right and wrong.
Right in that the lemmings result to name-calling and dismissing an opposing viewpoint


I'm gonna start calling you Nancy

entertainment level has been pretty good. :tu

[Blackjack]

First off, I appreciate the interest of Winehole. Sorry I couldn't respond earlier, brah. I'll try to make sure I'm able to get online at all times. :lol

Here's the thing with this whole argument/diatribe/whatever-this-has-now-become and the reason for the disconnect -- what I believe I've finally pinpointed, at least.

What it seems most here are doing is painting all the opposition as the most vocal and adamant portion. As in most cases like this, the most visibly seen and heard are the extreme element of their faction.

This issue on a scale of 1-10 is probably a 3 in the people I've alluded to and my life. It only became a point of discussion once it became this whole ridiculous sideshow. So I can't say what it is most of them would have felt had they just been asked the question in passing one day (i.e., "What would you think if a mosque/community center were to be built near Ground Zero?"), instead they were asked once it became what it is now.

Are they all arguing that it needs to be moved or not built? Not really. I'd venture to guess some would prefer that its location change, but they don't feel that will prevent any consequence from happening -- I believe most -- if not ALL -- I've talked to believe whether this thing is built, moved or not built, there will be propaganda and pro-extremist rhetoric to be gained. I guess some could believe it's a lose-lose under the circumstance, so they might as well move it ... but I couldn't say for sure. Seems that that'd be a pretty decent possibility.

That's seemingly the disconnect. People here have been advancing the argument to the potential movement or having Park51 not built, but that's never been part of the equation. ALL involved with the people I've discussed this with are resigned to the fact that this thing will be built. They're not on the scene protesting or taking away time from their lives or families trying to figure out how to stop this from happening. Again, it's just not that important to them, myself and there are certainly more pressing issues in our world and around the world at large.

They believe Park51 was in the wrong for taking an unnecessary risk with lives -- and with the people that lost theirs memory -- and they simply can't understand why or condone their actions. You'll never be able to tell them -- and even myself -- that the building of a mosque/community center within the close proximity of Ground Zero was a decision made with the requisite sensitivity. They'll never understand why you wouldn't err on the side of caution in this particular case. I agree with them in that respect -- if the community center had sought my advice beforehand I would have told them to buy their property a little further away. Err on the side of caution and do your thing. There's no need to even leave open the possibility the sensitivities of 9-11 could come into play.

So the people I'm talking to oppose but -- by in large -- they believe it's too far down the road to believe their opposition could do much -- if any -- good, at this point. But they still fall into the opposition because they can't simply not oppose in light of their opinion/belief not mattering. It's a principle stand. They don't believe Park51 was in the "right" for building there (as in human beings and fellow Americans just using common sense), so they can't just be pro-Park51 on account of their inability to make things better with their opposing view.

I can respect their views and beliefs because I happen to agree that Park51's decision to buy and build within such proximity to Ground Zero wasn't the best thing they could have done. I just don't -- for some of the same reasons they do. Where I differ is believing what I believe should matter. Whatever I believe the best and most prudent thing to do might be, it shouldn't matter in this case.

I joked about it, but it's like my pro-choice stance: pro-choice as a rule/law, pro-life as it pertains to me (with 1-2 extreme exceptions). I believe Park51 has every right to do whatever they deem necessary or a good idea to do, so long as they've met all the requirements, which I believe they have. It doesn't matter whether I think it's the best idea or the smartest idea. As far as I'm concerned: Do it to it. Ain't my decision to make.

No one here will convince me to believe the people I've alluded to in opposition or -- that I, myself -- is somehow a bigot for believing Park51 didn't make the wisest of decisions building where they did. I've yet to here any reasoning suggested as to why they had to buy and build their property there other than: They bought and decided to build their property there. If there's something to be gained for choosing the location I -- and I'm sure the friends and family I've discussed this with -- would honestly love to know. All I've heard is the questioning of the people I've defended motives, not Park51's, which would seem to suggest tolerance only goes one way: If innocent until proven guilty is the law, why is Park51 the peaceful and good Muslim until proven otherwise and everyone in opposition a racist or bigot until proven otherwise?

They both should be given the benefit of a doubt until proven otherwise, which is the point I've tried to make all along -- you can't promote tolerance and understanding through intolerance and ignorance; that's exactly what blanket statements and generalizations are rooted in and those that make them haven't the intention of getting things "right" or the "right" things done, only that they're right in a classroom's theoretical, vacuous discussion/argument.

That's not doing what is "right," that's simply trying to win an argument for the sake of winning an argument. The kind of thing usually reserved for a college kid, the pretentious, the insecure or the out-of-touch.

That's about the best I can do to crystallize what is I've been trying to say. We'll see if it focuses the discussion more instead of having it venture further away from what this was really all about -- the semantics of morality, racism or anything else that has entered the equation, is open-ended and never-ending.

[Winehole23]

What is the irrationality based on? Fear, ignorance and prejudice are solid guesses, but I'm not sure that's always knowable.

[Blake]

They believe Park51 was in the wrong for taking an unnecessary risk with lives -- and with the people that lost theirs memory -- and they simply can't understand why or condone their actions. You'll never be able to tell them -- and even myself -- that the building of a mosque/community center within the close proximity of Ground Zero was a decision made with the requisite sensitivity. They'll never understand why you wouldn't err on the side of caution in this particular case. I agree with them in that respect -- if the community center had sought my advice beforehand I would have told them to buy their property a little further away. Err on the side of caution and do your thing. There's no need to even leave open the possibility the sensitivities of 9-11 could come into play.



:lol You still just do not get it.

Your "good people friends" believe the builders are wrong because they are Muslim.

Your "good people friends" believe the builders are taking unnecessary risks with lives because they are Muslim.

You called anyone who said these type of people are Islamophobic or racists "lemmings".

Again, for the whatever time, if it is not a fear based on their religion, what is their fear based on?

[Blackjack]

lol Nancy's reading comprehension.

[Blake]

lol Blackjack's "good people friends" and their Islamophobia.

lol you're an idiot that's getting abused badly

lol not a good thread for you

[Blackjack]

lol Denial

So potential repercussions by extremists = fear of all Muslims?

So you're equating the actions of extremist to be those of all Muslims?

lol continued generalizations, Nancy.

[Blackjack]

Put simply, if there's a 1% chance something you're wanting to do could cost someone a life or dishonor any of the innocent people that lost their lives, why do you take that chance if you've got other options?

Why, Nancy? (And even I see the irony in that lol)

[Winehole23]

Do you drive to work, Blackjack? Don't you have other options?

[Winehole23]

There's a chance you could kill somebody (or be killed) every time you get into the car. Why take it if there are other options available?

[Blackjack]

I work from home, so no, I don't.

Are you equating taking a necessary risk to live your life (as ridiculous as it sounds when talking "driving" but it technically is) with choosing to build something that's neither necessary to live your life or being forced upon you to do so?

[Winehole23]

It's analogous to what you were saying, yes. No one is forced to drive, and it's not strictly necessary to live your life.

[Winehole23]

Year in year out, driving is far more deadly than terrorism.

[DarrinS]

Year in year out, driving is far more deadly than terrorism.

(burp)

[Winehole23]

^^^Monkey see monkey do.

[Blackjack]

It's analogous to what you were saying, yes. No one is forced to drive, and it's not strictly necessary to live your life.


Year in year out, driving is far more deadly than terrorism.

I don't see it.

To speak Robin Hood Men In Tights, if I could, if you ain't got no tolls, you ain't got no rolls.

You gotta get paid somehow and if driving to work is your only option, the risk of injury or death is a risk worth taking because you gots to eat.

Whether this community center was built in the vicinity of 9-11's wake or elsewhere had no bearing on Park51's ability to live, worship or do anything else, at least I've yet to hear otherwise.

[Blackjack]

^^^Monkey see monkey do.

:monkey

Just discovered that yesterday. Seemed an opportune enough reply to use if for a second time.

[Blake]

So potential repercussions by extremists = fear of all Muslims?


No.

Potential repercussions by strawman extremists = fear of Islam.

[Blake]

Put simply, if there's a 1% chance something you're wanting to do could cost someone a life or dishonor any of the innocent people that lost their lives, why do you take that chance if you've got other options?

Why, Nancy? (And even I see the irony in that lol)

so much fail in this post.

Including the continued hypocrisy of you name calling upon getting butthurt.

You're just flat out an idiot.

:lol

[Blake]

Whether this community center was built in the vicinity of 9-11's wake or elsewhere had no bearing on Park51's ability to live, worship or do anything else, at least I've yet to hear otherwise.

Exactly how far away from Ground Zero would be good enough to ease your fear of the "extremists"?

[Blackjack]

You'll get a legitimate response when you decide to answer any of the questions I've asked, Nancy.

Until then:

lol "strawman"

lol butthurt lemming

lol Why?

[Blake]

You'll get a legitimate response when you decide to answer any of the questions I've asked, Nancy.


Post the question(s) right now.

This is the second time I've directly told you to post the question(s).

[Blackjack]

I've posted them on multiple occasions. To pull a good ol' Winehole, if they were that important you could go back a page or two.

But how 'bout just the last one:

What possible reason (other than they did) would this community center have to buy and build their project there when there are supposedly over 100 mosques in the New York state area, plenty of spaces to buy and rent available and a mosque stands only 4 blocks from where the World Trade Center once stood?

[Blake]

I've posted them on multiple occasions. To pull a good ol' Winehole, if they were that important you could go back a page or two.

If they are that important to you, you should have no problem posting them again.


But how 'bout just the last one:

What possible reason (other than they did) would this community center have to buy and build their project there when there are supposedly over 100 mosques in the New York state area, plenty of spaces to buy and rent available and a mosque stands only 4 blocks from where the World Trade Center once stood?

I have absolutely no idea why they would build a Muslim community center where they did.

Any more questions?

[LnGrrrR]

What it seems most here are doing is painting all the opposition as the most vocal and adamant portion. As in most cases like this, the most visibly seen and heard are the extreme element of their faction.

And it is the vocal ones, the extreme ones, that shape the opinions of the masses.


This issue on a scale of 1-10 is probably a 3 in the people I've alluded to and my life. It only became a point of discussion once it became this whole ridiculous sideshow. So I can't say what it is most of them would have felt had they just been asked the question in passing one day (i.e., "What would you think if a mosque/community center were to be built near Ground Zero?"), instead they were asked once it became what it is now.

What difference does that make on whether a stance is rational or not?


Are they all arguing that it needs to be moved or not built? Not really. I'd venture to guess some would prefer that its location change, but they don't feel that will prevent any consequence from happening -- I believe most -- if not ALL -- I've talked to believe whether this thing is built, moved or not built, there will be propaganda and pro-extremist rhetoric to be gained. I guess some could believe it's a lose-lose under the circumstance, so they might as well move it ... but I couldn't say for sure. Seems that that'd be a pretty decent possibility.

Your argument was that "good people" had rational, valid reasons for wanting the mosque to move. Can you articulate those arguments? If the argument is that the building of this mosque will be used as propaganda, well, you already pointed out that MOVING it will also cause propaganda, making that argument invalid.

So what valid argument do people who feel the mosque should be moved have? The only argument left is to conflate radical terrorists who happen to believe in the same God as hundreds of thousands of "normal" (for lack of a better word) practicing Muslims.


They're not on the scene protesting or taking away time from their lives or families trying to figure out how to stop this from happening. Again, it's just not that important to them, myself and there are certainly more pressing issues in our world and around the world at large.

What does that have to do with the rationality of their beliefs? The degree of belief has nothing to do with the rationality behind it.


They believe Park51 was in the wrong for taking an unnecessary risk with lives -- and with the people that lost theirs memory -- and they simply can't understand why or condone their actions.

Why? Because some radical Muslims happened to be behind 9/11? What does that have to do with the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Muslims that are normal, everyday people? Do they feel that churches should not be built in the vicinity of abortion clinics for the same reason?


You'll never be able to tell them -- and even myself -- that the building of a mosque/community center within the close proximity of Ground Zero was a decision made with the requisite sensitivity.

I thought you said that these "good people" were open to discussion? Now you're telling me that we'll never convince them. Why not? Is it because their disapproval rests not with logic of facts, but emotion alone?

Why would people building a mosque require a certain level of "sensitivity" anyways? Do we judge other buildings by the same standards? What about the strip clubs near Ground Zero?

In fact, given that there are already many existing mosques in NY city, how would the builders know in advance the furor that would erupt? Should they have been able to predict public reaction? As I stated in an above post, the wife of Imam went on the Laura Ingraham show, and she didn't seem particularly offended by it.

So, we have a building/builders that are being held to different standards that other bldgs... why is that, do you think? Why would people be offended by MUSLIMs praying near Ground Zero?


They'll never understand why you wouldn't err on the side of caution in this particular case. I agree with them in that respect -- if the community center had sought my advice beforehand I would have told them to buy their property a little further away.

Why are Muslims praying near Ground Zero offensive? Can you give me a valid reason?


Err on the side of caution and do your thing. There's no need to even leave open the possibility the sensitivities of 9-11 could come into play.

How much farther would you ask them to build it? 4 blocks away? 10? Another city?

Where exactly would people's "sensitivities" not be offended?


So the people I'm talking to oppose but -- by in large -- they believe it's too far down the road to believe their opposition could do much -- if any -- good, at this point.

What does that have to do with the validity of their belief that the church should move?

EVEN IF they thought the builders went about it the wrong way, they STILL could feel that since this is the spot chosen, they should build. But you go one beyond; you state that these "good people" not only believe that the designers should have been more "sensitive", but that they should move the mosque as well, if they were decent people.


But they still fall into the opposition because they can't simply not oppose in light of their opinion/belief not mattering. It's a principle stand. They don't believe Park51 was in the "right" for building there (as in human beings and fellow Americans just using common sense), so they can't just be pro-Park51 on account of their inability to make things better with their opposing view.

Why don't they believe Park51 was right? Why do they think Muslims shouldn't be allowed to have a community centre near Ground Zero?


I can respect their views and beliefs because I happen to agree that Park51's decision to buy and build within such proximity to Ground Zero wasn't the best thing they could have done. I just don't -- for some of the same reasons they do.

Would you care to enunciate those reasons? All you've said is that it might affect people's feelings, that it's a "sensitive" issue. Why? Why is allowing Muslims to pray near Ground Zero something that would offend others? Because a few radicals who also prayed to Allah caused 9/11? If this is what you think, do you think it's a valid, rational belief?


Where I differ is believing what I believe should matter. Whatever I believe the best and most prudent thing to do might be, it shouldn't matter in this case.

Why doesn't it matter? People's beliefs on issues like these reflect who they are as a person. Of course it matters.

As Jean-Paul Sartre once said,

To choose this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without being good for all.


I joked about it, but it's like my pro-choice stance: pro-choice as a rule/law, pro-life as it pertains to me (with 1-2 extreme exceptions). I believe Park51 has every right to do whatever they deem necessary or a good idea to do, so long as they've met all the requirements, which I believe they have. It doesn't matter whether I think it's the best idea or the smartest idea. As far as I'm concerned: Do it to it. Ain't my decision to make.

But you have the ability to shape the minds, the opinions of others, don't you? To not do such shirks a responsibility, to educate your fellow man. If you feel they are in the wrong, and they are teachable (as that is evidenced by your definition of a "good person", or it was previously) then why not teach?


No one here will convince me to believe the people I've alluded to in opposition or -- that I, myself -- is somehow a bigot for believing Park51 didn't make the wisest of decisions building where they did. I've yet to here any reasoning suggested as to why they had to buy and build their property there other than: They bought and decided to build their property there.

Why should they need a more valid reasoning? Because it will allow Muslims to pray there? Do we question the reasoning for other buildings as we do this one?


If there's something to be gained for choosing the location I -- and I'm sure the friends and family I've discussed this with -- would honestly love to know.

Obviously, the people who bought the property bought it for a reason, yes? I'll put myself at risk of committing a false dichotomy, but the answer seems to split into two categories. Those who feel they bought that property because they wanted to create a community center/mosque for local individuals, and those who feel it's some inside plot to claim victory for Muslim terrorists everywhere by building a mosque near Ground Zero. There's a great deal more evidence for the former than the latter.


All I've heard is the questioning of the people I've defended motives, not Park51's, which would seem to suggest tolerance only goes one way: If innocent until proven guilty is the law, why is Park51 the peaceful and good Muslim until proven otherwise and everyone in opposition a racist or bigot until proven otherwise?

And there it is. Why should we just "assume" that Park51 is peaceful and good? Surely, we can assume that they're a secretly evil terrorist organization!

We assume Park51 is good because they are building a mosque/community center, which is admittedly a positive thing for a local community, correct? People who want to prove that the building of that area is BAD thing have to prove their case rationally, without resorting to bias, strawmen, etc. Blake, I, and others have provided ample opportunity for you to make that case; all we've seen so far is this "Good people can disagree!" and "The builders weren't sensitive enough" without any solid, specific reason why building it there is bad/offensive. Can you provide one?


They both should be given the benefit of a doubt until proven otherwise, which is the point I've tried to make all along -- you can't promote tolerance and understanding through intolerance and ignorance; that's exactly what blanket statements and generalizations are rooted in and those that make them haven't the intention of getting things "right" or the "right" things done, only that they're right in a classroom's theoretical, vacuous discussion/argument.

I've not once accused the "other side" of racism; I've accused them of irrationality if anything. So why do you keep bringing it up?


That's not doing what is "right," that's simply trying to win an argument for the sake of winning an argument. The kind of thing usually reserved for a college kid, the pretentious, the insecure or the out-of-touch.

Nice ad hominems there. I personally feel that "winning this argument" will have far-reaching, long-term effects in the Muslim community throughout the world. But I'm probably a college kid, pretentious, insecure, or out-of-touch.


That's about the best I can do to crystallize what is I've been trying to say. We'll see if it focuses the discussion more instead of having it venture further away from what this was really all about -- the semantics of morality, racism or anything else that has entered the equation, is open-ended and never-ending.

You could focus the discussion more if you could state a clear, rational reason why they should have to move the mosque. You already stated that YOU morally disagreed with them building there as well, so let's cut out the "good people" middleman.

Why do YOU think allowing Muslims to pray near Ground Zero is offensive/should not be encouraged?

[LnGrrrR]

What possible reason (other than they did) would this community center have to buy and build their project there when there are supposedly over 100 mosques in the New York state area, plenty of spaces to buy and rent available and a mosque stands only 4 blocks from where the World Trade Center once stood?

They wanted to? What does that have to do with the correctness/morality/etc of the building itself, or their actions? They chose this area because it reflected their wants, whether it be due to a perceived good location, high traffic, or some other metric.

But of course, that answer is boring; the implied reason (they wanted to offend America and claim victory for terrorists!) is much more exciting. *Cue scary music*

[Blackjack]

If they are that important to you, you should have no problem posting them again.

They, and you, are not important to me. But since you like to try and imitate Chump with your questioning -- even if you fail to replicate the substance and humor -- I figured it'd be nice to see you actually answer something.


I have absolutely no idea why they would build a Muslim community center where they did.

Thanks. So they're bigots, at least by your logic -- you just don't know or can't understand.


Any more questions?

Nope, that should do it.

[Blackjack]

They wanted to? What does that have to do with the correctness/morality/etc of the building itself, or their actions? They chose this area because it reflected their wants, whether it be due to a perceived good location, high traffic, or some other metric.

But of course, that answer is boring; the implied reason (they wanted to offend America and claim victory for terrorists!) is much more exciting. *Cue scary music*

Simple, if you feel the need to question the motives of one particular group on the basis of subjection/generalization, it would stand to reason that you scrutinize the other side just the same. Tolerance goes both ways.

[LnGrrrR]

Put simply, if there's a 1% chance something you're wanting to do could cost someone a life or dishonor any of the innocent people that lost their lives, why do you take that chance if you've got other options?

Wow, so many glaring problems within one post.

The first is this idea that we don't do something because it may cause harm. Do you drive to work? If so, you're probably taking a 1% chance that you could cost someone a life. Do you use electricity? Electricians throughout the country die each year. Etc etc. We accept mortality based on the need for an item vs the risk to procure it.

Given that, the next problem with your post is evident. What are the odds that building this mosque would lead to lost lives? You throw out 1%... do you know that the odds of being hurt in a terrorist attack are ridiculously low, compare to any number of diseases/accidents/etc etc? In fact, if you live in America, you've got a greater chance of being killed by a bee than a terrorist; the majority of terrorist actions occur overseas.

Final problem with this post; preventing people from "dishonoring" innocent people that lost their lives. One, does this mosque dishonor everyone? Aren't there 9/11 families that support the mosque? In fact, didn't some Muslims die during 9/11? It's not like that building only had white people in it.

[LnGrrrR]

Simple, if you feel the need to question the motives of one particular group on the basis of subjection/generalization, it would stand to reason that you scrutinize the other side just the same. Tolerance goes both ways.

But the only reason you'd question WHY they are building the mosque there is if you didn't believe their stated reasons for it; to build a community center to strengthen the community and build an inter-faith bridge, and instead think they were building it there because of some other reason. Do you think that?

Edit: Also, I'm not questioning their MOTIVES... I'm questioning their ARGUMENT. Their ARGUMENT is faulty, regardless of the motive for said argument.

[Blackjack]

Wow, so many glaring problems within one post.

The first is this idea that we don't do something because it may cause harm. Do you drive to work? If so, you're probably taking a 1% chance that you could cost someone a life. Do you use electricity? Electricians throughout the country die each year. Etc etc. We accept mortality based on the need for an item vs the risk to procure it.

Winehole tried to make the same analogy, and I simply don't agree or see it.

Why does one drive? Usually, it has to do with the living of your life and the ability to get to work to pay for that life. There's of course the recreational aspect but in the grand scheme of things, driving's a necessity to the living of a lot of people's lives and livelihoods.

Why does one feel the need to build a mosque/community center within a stones throw of Ground Zero; specifically when there's a mosque 4 blocks away, over 100 mosques in the state and plenty of opportunities and locations to choose from that wouldn't even bring 9-11 into play? I don't see a necessity involved.


Given that, the next problem with your post is evident. What are the odds that building this mosque would lead to lost lives? You throw out 1%... do you know that the odds of being hurt in a terrorist attack are ridiculously low, compare to any number of diseases/accidents/etc etc? In fact, if you live in America, you've got a greater chance of being killed by a bee than a terrorist; the majority of terrorist actions occur overseas.

Can you say with certainty that some disenfranchised youth or person won't join the cause of Jihad because of the propaganda gained from a perceived victory tower on Ground Zero?

That's not what I believe it to be or what I believe Park51's intentions to be, but do you really think this won't be spun in some way to make it seem that way -- have we not seen what a no-nothing piece of shit's decision to burn Quran's was painted as, as if this was some kind of "American thing" and not a "nutjob thing?"

Bottom line, why is it important that the community center be built in such proximity to Ground Zero? If it was the only place, more power to them. But if not, why; why even take a chance with anyone's life? whether it's a 100% chance or a 0.1% chance, why would you ever take a chance like that for no reason?


Final problem with this post; preventing people from "dishonoring" innocent people that lost their lives. One, does this mosque dishonor everyone? Aren't there 9/11 families that support the mosque? In fact, didn't some Muslims die during 9/11? It's not like that building only had white people in it.

If some nutjob uses the placement of the mosque as a means to perpetuate terror, that's dishonoring the memory of those that lost their lives. Simple as that. It's not about the decent, but those that would use the decent's actions to further their own cause.

See, while good and fair-minded Muslims (the majority) don't associate themselves with the extremist element, the extremist element associates with them in the name of Allah. They (the extremists) see any advancement of Islam as a victory to their cause, even if not vice-versa. So if anything bad comes from this decision of Park51 -- and, shit, it could be a wackjob from the opposition -- that's not honoring the fallen.

It doesn't matter how small the risk of something happening might be, it's still a risk. An unnecessary, needless one, unless someone can suggest a reason otherwise.


But the only reason you'd question WHY they are building the mosque there is if you didn't believe their stated reasons for it; to build a community center to strengthen the community and build an inter-faith bridge, and instead think they were building it there because of some other reason. Do you think that?

No, I'm asking for consistency. Innocent until proven guilty is just that. It may not always happen in the court of public opinion but it seems strange to suggest ALL those in opposition are racist or bigots -- simply because it's beyond one's understanding -- and giving a pass to the other side when there doesn't seem to be a real logical reason as to why Park51 chose this venue. Why could they not do their good from another venue that would never have brought 9-11 into play?

Again, there are over 100 mosques in New York, one 4 blocks away from Ground Zero and plenty of places to build. Is it more or less crazy to question Park51's rationale given those facts or ALL of the opposition's?


Edit: Also, I'm not questioning their MOTIVES... I'm questioning their ARGUMENT. Their ARGUMENT is faulty, regardless of the motive for said argument.

You're questioning a belief and rationale, not an argument. As I mentioned in my last monstrosity of a post, the people I've discussed this with are in opposition on principle. They don't believe whatever they believe matters at this point in the game, as it is what it is. But they can't say they're simply for it in light of that fact, they're not. Again, it just is what it is.

Note: Off to drink irresponsibly and watch some football, so don't feel abandoned if you don't hear from me for 16-24 hours Wino or anyone else. :toast :D

[Blake]

Note: Off to drink irresponsibly :D


why even take a chance with anyone's life? whether it's a 100% chance or a 0.1% chance, why would you ever take a chance like that for no reason?

[LnGrrrR]

Winehole tried to make the same analogy, and I simply don't agree or see it.

Why does one drive? Usually, it has to do with the living of your life and the ability to get to work to pay for that life. There's of course the recreational aspect but in the grand scheme of things, driving's a necessity to the living of a lot of people's lives and livelihoods.

Why does one feel the need to build a mosque/community center within a stones throw of Ground Zero; specifically when there's a mosque 4 blocks away, over 100 mosques in the state and plenty of opportunities and locations to choose from that wouldn't even bring 9-11 into play? I don't see a necessity involved.

Because they wanted to? Why should one have to justify one's desire to build what they wish on land they've purchased? Do you hold the same rigorous standard to other people who wish to build?

Again 9/11 wasn't brought into play until people chose to.


Can you say with certainty that some disenfranchised youth or person won't join the cause of Jihad because of the propaganda gained from a perceived victory tower on Ground Zero?

Really? I expect better. Let me show you how dumb this question is.

"Can you say with certainty that some youth won't be inspired by us allowing the mosque to be built there, and all the passionate supporters of the mosque, and thereby turn away from terrorism?"

Heck, I could even say, "Can you say with certainty that Osama won't be turned in by this same idealistic Muslim?"


That's not what I believe it to be or what I believe Park51's intentions to be, but do you really think this won't be spun in some way to make it seem that way -- have we not seen what a no-nothing piece of shit's decision to burn Quran's was painted as, as if this was some kind of "American thing" and not a "nutjob thing?"

We already agreed it could be spun either way, regardless of it moving or not, correct? Then why do you keep bringing up this failed argument as if it had validity?


Bottom line, why is it important that the community center be built in such proximity to Ground Zero? If it was the only place, more power to them. But if not, why; why even take a chance with anyone's life? whether it's a 100% chance or a 0.1% chance, why would you ever take a chance like that for no reason?

Because they chose to. As far as this "Why take a chance with life" argument, that's just utter crap. As you pointed out above, we all take chances with life, due to tradeoffs. You say driving is a necessity... is it? I know people who live without a car. Sure, it's limiting, but they do it. Why do you take that chance Blackjack? You could potentially hurt an innocent, and yet, you still take up this action.

You introduce another strawman when you say that they built it there for "no reason". You admitted above you didn't know their reason; that's not the same as them having no reason.

Finally, again, forcing someone to admit "why" they built a mosque there completely glosses over the fact that it shouldn't be inflammatory at all, and people are only sensitive about it because they associate all Muslims with the terrorist actions of 19 radicals.

We don't live our life by these "What if" moments, because if we did, we'd never leave the house. I see no need to hold these builders to such ridiculous standards. That's even more asinine than the "If you smoke weed, you're supporting terrorism!" claim. :lol


If some nutjob uses the placement of the mosque as a means to perpetuate terror, that's dishonoring the memory of those that lost their lives. Simple as that. It's not about the decent, but those that would use the decent's actions to further their own cause.

How the fuck do you figure? If some nutjob uses the placement of the mosque as a means to perpetuate terror... that means he's a nutjob.

Let me point out again how ridiculous your statement is. Let's say the owners of the mosque DO move, in a hypothetical future.

Now, some nutjob is pissed because he thinks that means that American Muslims are second-class citizens, and decides to become a nutjob and bomb a building. Now what? How does your logic resolve this possible situation? Doesn't it demand that they CAN'T move the mosque, due to such a possibility?


See, while good and fair-minded Muslims (the majority) don't associate themselves with the extremist element, the extremist element associates with them in the name of Allah. They (the extremists) see any advancement of Islam as a victory to their cause, even if not vice-versa. So if anything bad comes from this decision of Park51 -- and, shit, it could be a wackjob from the opposition -- that's not honoring the fallen.

And if anything bad comes from MOVING the mosque, that's not "honoring the fallen" either, is it?


It doesn't matter how small the risk of something happening might be, it's still a risk. An unnecessary, needless one, unless someone can suggest a reason otherwise.

Pascal's Wager. Have you read up on it yet? I suggest you do.


No, I'm asking for consistency. Innocent until proven guilty is just that. It may not always happen in the court of public opinion but it seems strange to suggest ALL those in opposition are racist or bigots -- simply because it's beyond one's understanding -- and giving a pass to the other side when there doesn't seem to be a real logical reason as to why Park51 chose this venue.

And yet, you are unable to voice a rational reason for wanting the mosque moved. As you can see above, that argument isn't very rational, and won't fly.


Why could they not do their good from another venue that would never have brought 9-11 into play?

Why did you buy a computer to type on when there are millions of people starving? You could have donated that money to poor kids in Africa, and yet, you didn't. Not very sensitive of you.


Again, there are over 100 mosques in New York, one 4 blocks away from Ground Zero and plenty of places to build. Is it more or less crazy to question Park51's rationale given those facts or ALL of the opposition's?

Have you even bothered trying to find out? Why don't you read what's on their website?
http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/frequently-asked-questions




Why are you building “a mosque near Ground zero?”
Strictly speaking, it will not be a “mosque,” although it would have a prayer space on one of its 15 floors. At the beginning, no one considered the fact that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf Abdul Rauf’s current mosque is 12 blocks from the Ground Zero site, while the Park51 Community Center location is only 2 and one-half blocks away. We never discussed wanting to be close to Ground Zero; our goal was to find a good real estate opportunity for a community center. 51 Park seemed to fit the bill.

But why so close to Ground Zero?
We were always close to the World Trade Center. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has been the Imam of a mosque twelve blocks from the Twin Towers for the last 27 years. American Muslims have been peacefully living, working and worshipping in this neighborhood all along and were also terribly affected by the horrific events of 9/11.
We wanted to build a community center in our old neighborhood, and the Park51 location became available. (In our part of lower Manhattan, it’s hard not to be close to Ground Zero.) As Muslim New Yorkers and Americans, we want to help and be part of rebuilding our neighborhood. It is important for everyone to show the world that Americans will not be frightened or deterred by the extremist forces of hatred.


Do you believe his words, or not?


You're questioning a belief and rationale, not an argument. As I mentioned in my last monstrosity of a post, the people I've discussed this with are in opposition on principle. They don't believe whatever they believe matters at this point in the game, as it is what it is. But they can't say they're simply for it in light of that fact, they're not. Again, it just is what it is.

I'm sorry, but this was barely intelligible.

Why are the people opposed on principle? Why do they think it's offensive? Is it because they don't want Muslims praying so close to Ground Zero?

I guess there's "enough" mosques so those Muslims don't need anymore. And 4 blocks away is close enough... they're getting a little uppity asking for a mosque 2 blocks away, am I right people?

Also, there's a monster post that I posted that you missed responding to. It's there whenver you're ready.

[LnGrrrR]

Here's some more info from the website:



Isn’t the location insensitive given that the 9/11 attackers were Muslims?
 


The events of 9/11 were horrific. What happened that day was terrorism, and it shames us that it was cloaked in the guise of Islam. It was inhumane, un-Islamic and is indefensible regardless of one’s religious persuasion. Not only Americans but also all Muslims are threatened by the lies and actions being perpetrated by these self-serving extremists and their perverted view of Islam.
The community center will be a platform to amplify the voices of the overwhelming majority of Muslims whose love for America and commitment to peace gets drowned out by the actions of a few extremists. It will become a platform where the voices of those who resist religious extremism and terrorism can be amplified and celebrated.
But, why not build it a little bit farther away? Let’s say a mile away?
No one should be driven out of his or her own neighborhood – especially for religious reasons. It is unconstitutional and un-American. Our congregation has been peacefully worshipping in this area for almost three decades. Our neighbors have encouraged us to remain here, and the City and the Community Board have encouraged our continued presence here. The community has backed up their support by approving every resolution and challenge in the community center’s favor.

What about the 9/11 families? Don’t you see their pain?

Like all New Yorkers and Americans we too were devastated by 9/11. We share and respect the incredible pain and loss suffered by the victims of 9/11. We fully recognize their legitimate concerns and sensitivity to the community center. It shames us that extremists who profess to be Muslim perpetrated murder on such a horrific scale for political and financial gain in the name of Islam. We look forward to actively engaging with leaders of the victims of 9/11 to respond to their concerns and obtain their support for our efforts.

Will the extremists take over the Community Center once it’s built?

Extremism on both sides is the danger – it’s what we’re working against. A community center that celebrates diversity and multi-faith collaboration is antithetical to the extremists’ worldview. This center will be a blow to all extremists. In addition, the new organization’s multi-faith Trustees and Board of Advisors will ensure that our good intentions are not hijacked by extremist elements who reject our vision of peace, tolerance and understanding.



Are you not building a project that will be one of conquest? Isn’t this a victory for the extremists?

The community center is opposed to religious extremists of all faiths. It demonstrates that Americans cannot be intimidated and will join together to promote moderation, peace and understanding when challenged.
The extremists will not find victory or comfort in a community center whose sole purpose is to bring peace through multi-faith collaboration and celebrate the diversity of views in our world.
This center is an important step towards building understanding and peace. Just as we strive to understand the faith and traditions of our neighbors, this center will invite others to learn about the true nature of Islam. A religion of peace, tolerance, and understanding.


So, according to the website, the property became available and they bought it because it had the room they were looking for and was at an acceptable location. The community center is dedicated to recognizing all faiths and working together to bridge gaps between them. They don't wish to move, even a mile away, because they feel (rightly so) it is un-American to ask someone to move due to religious reasons. They're ashamed of the Muslims who claimed the name of Allah to carry out their attacks on 9/11, and they share the tragedy, as many of them worked in lower Manhattan before the attacks, a congregration that, according to the website, has been peacefully worshipping for over three decades.

Given the above info, what's your principled stand against them building there?

[Winehole23]

Note: Off to drink irresponsibly and watch some football, so don't feel abandoned if you don't hear from me for 16-24 hours Wino or anyone else. You've been shitting on us at great length in this thread, but saying very little, for days now.

Thanks for giving us a little break. I sure won't miss you. :tu

[Nbadan]

You've been shitting on us at great length in this thread, but saying very little, for days now.

Thanks for giving us a little break. I sure won't miss you. :tu

Blackjack's views are representative of quite a few millions Americans...radical? likely....true? hardly.....genuine? nope....dismissible? dangerous...

[Blackjack]

You've been shitting on us at great length in this thread, but saying very little, for days now.

Thanks for giving us a little break. I sure won't miss you

The well ran dry, Wino. Time for you to get shit on, I apologize in advance -- it's nature . . .


Because they wanted to? Why should one have to justify one's desire to build what they wish on land they've purchased? Do you hold the same rigorous standard to other people who wish to build?

I know. It's ridiculous, right? Questioning people's motives just because. It's weird ... I say something, figure you'd realize where I'm coming from ... but it never fails -- it must be in the Political Forum's water (or just the fact that the ones who seem to post the most seem to be extremely like-minded ideologues (with 2-3 being on the other side).

I made the point with Park51 to show how you could do the same ridiculous shit to the other side. Prove you're not a racist! Prove you're not a terrorist!

What's the difference?


Again 9/11 wasn't brought into play until people chose to.

Well, that, and the location.


Really? I expect better. Let me show you how dumb this question is.

I'm beginning to realize the LnGrrrR I enjoyed outside of the Politics forum doesn't exist here. :lol


"Can you say with certainty that some youth won't be inspired by us allowing the mosque to be built there, and all the passionate supporters of the mosque, and thereby turn away from terrorism?"

Again, you're just failing to see what I was speaking to. You and your brethren here have been professing to know what's in the minds and hearts of ALL those that oppose. They couldn't have opposition without them being racist, Islamphobes, morons, and basically, beneath you -- there's definitely no lacking of the typical elitist rhetoric here.

There's a reason it sounded stupid, it was supposed to; as stupid as professing or believing that all whom are in opposition would be better off exterminated. Let's not beat around the bush, the brethren here can't stand these people. "How dare they oppose!" "Those fuckin racist!" "Ain't no one more tolerant than me!"


We already agreed it could be spun either way, regardless of it moving or not, correct? Then why do you keep bringing up this failed argument as if it had validity?

Stay with me here, brah, but my stance hasn't changed, nor has the post I made (that really long one that I took the time to try and boil it down to find where the disconnect was). I know people here like to change the goal posts, make terrible analogies and throw around the word "strawman" ad nauseam, but I'm the same dude with the same take and y'all keep coming back for more, creating more than there ever was in the process.

I'm not talking about moving the mosque. I'm still for it. The majority I know to oppose it, they simply oppose it on principle. They're not gonna be out there in the streets trying to stop this. They're resigned to the fact that it will be built. They're simply hoping for the best, at this point, since -- like myself (and even yourself, to some degree) -- believe this story's become too big to not become propaganda with whatever the outcome. The resentment comes from this story ever becoming this big, something that was pretty much inevitable once Park51 decided to build where they did. You may not like that, I don't fuckin' like it either, but it didn't take a genius to know this would become a huge issue. There aren't more emotionally-charged topics than 9-11 and deciding to build something on this scale (maybe if it's just a little hole-in-the-wall mosque with no pomp and circumstance around it it never gets noticed, I guess it's possible) wasn't going to go well in the public arena.


Because they chose to. As far as this "Why take a chance with life" argument, that's just utter crap. As you pointed out above, we all take chances with life, due to tradeoffs. You say driving is a necessity... is it? I know people who live without a car. Sure, it's limiting, but they do it. Why do you take that chance Blackjack? You could potentially hurt an innocent, and yet, you still take up this action.

For a lot of people, yes, driving is a necessity. Public transportation ain't what it is in places like New York, Boston, etc. You want to get to work, you need to get there -- not sure if you've ever been or lived in San Antonio but I was born and lived there for a good chunk of my life ... you need a car (unless you happen to live right next to your work).

But you admit there's a tradeoff. What's the tradeoff for Park51? We know the cons but what are the pros? Just because? Because it's somewhat of an old stomping ground?


Heck, I could even say, "Can you say with certainty that Osama won't be turned in by this same idealistic Muslim?"

No, I cant (and, yes, I'm being facetious)


You introduce another strawman when you say that they built it there for "no reason". You admitted above you didn't know their reason; that's not the same as them having no reason.

I love that word. :lol

I said I'd like to know the reason. Essentially, I'm pulling a Nancy on you. Prove a negative. Guilty until proven otherwise. Admittedly, I don't see what's to be gained from this on Park51's behalf -- why it is they decided to purchase and build where they did -- but I'm all ears if there is an actual reason. Again, it just seems extremely naive to believe Park51 didn't know there was going to be some kind of blowback from the project, so I've honestly gotta wonder what's to be gained?


Finally, again, forcing someone to admit "why" they built a mosque there completely glosses over the fact that it shouldn't be inflammatory at all, and people are only sensitive about it because they associate all Muslims with the terrorist actions of 19 radicals.

Y'all are some really liberal, open-minded, generalizin' sonbitches, aren't you? :lol

Do you guys live in some utopia I should know about: "shouldn't be inflammatory at all," really? There's too much classroom here and not enough common sense. Why is it always what should be and not what is? The world and people around you are what they are, you deal with that accordingly.

Islam is obviously associated with Terrorists. Should it not be? Associated, that is. It doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists, though. It means the bulk of today's terrorism is done in the name of Jihad and Allah. Maybe y'all just want to tiptoe around that, as some kind of way to not offend or come off as less-than-tolerant for your "open-minded" views, but it's just a fact. Is it not?


We don't live our life by these "What if" moments, because if we did, we'd never leave the house. I see no need to hold these builders to such ridiculous standards. That's even more asinine than the "If you smoke weed, you're supporting terrorism!" claim.

Well, technically, if your including all forms of terrorism and not being specific to Islamic terrorists . . . :smokin


How the fuck do you figure? If some nutjob uses the placement of the mosque as a means to perpetuate terror... that means he's a nutjob.[QUOTE]

Well I fuckin figure (just figured I'd share in the profanity) that if the community center never came to bear -- as in , being built near Ground Zero -- there'd be nothing there to potentially spark any kind of nutjob to do anything because of it -- whether that ends up being an Islamic extremist or some skinhead or whatnot in opposition. And if something comes about because of Park51's decision to build near Ground Zero, it's kinda hard to see it as honoring the memory of 9-11. So the people dying there wasn't enough ... it's now gonna be some kind of reason for some other kind of terroristic act? (Hypothetically, of course -- I hate that I'm not able leave things implied.)

[QUOTE=LnGrrrR]Let me point out again how ridiculous your statement is. Let's say the owners of the mosque DO move, in a hypothetical future.
Now, some nutjob is pissed because he thinks that means that American Muslims are second-class citizens, and decides to become a nutjob and bomb a building. Now what? How does your logic resolve this possible situation? Doesn't it demand that they CAN'T move the mosque, due to such a possibility?

Again, the only thing ridiculous is you thinking my stance has changed or that I'm arguing something I'm not. You, and more so, Nancy, decided to keep on implying shit I never said or advancing the argument to a place that was irrelevant to the OP. The more that's written seems to take us further away from the point that was made: don't be an ignorant, intolerant person throwing inflammatory rhetoric under the guise of tolerance and understanding.

Unless there's any truth to the fuckstick wanting to burn Qurans having some meeting with the Imam, Park51 or whomever, and they're not going to build if he doesn't bust out the smores, this thing is getting built. It ain't moving. I ain't asking them to move, nor is anyone really adamant they should move from the people I've talked to. (Maybe 2 feel it's a lose-lose and would probably be for a move to get it away from Ground Zero if that's the case.) It's too far down the road at this point and there's simply nothing to be gained. So please, for God, Jesus, Jebus, Allah, and the Baby Jesus, stop with the moving shit. It ain't part of the equation on my end. :lol


Pascal's Wager. Have you read up on it yet? I suggest you do.

Will do. But it doesn't change the fact that you've responded to my whole post on a failed premise. I essentially played devil's advocate for the same stance being taken by you and others as it pertains to Park51. I've put the burden of proof on you to prove innocence.


And yet, you are unable to voice a rational reason for wanting the mosque moved. As you can see above, that argument isn't very rational, and won't fly.

And there's a reason for that: I've never, not once, suggested they should move, nor have I suggested that the opposition in question has suggested they should move. I'm not sure if Nancy's lack of reading comprehension and subsequent posts put that in your head or what, but it's just false. Plain and simple.


Why did you buy a computer to type on when there are millions of people starving? You could have donated that money to poor kids in Africa, and yet, you didn't. Not very sensitive of you.

Because kids are fucking annoying.


Do you believe his words, or not?

Good stuff, and I'm prone to believe him. I just got done hearing how he wouldn't have purchased and decided to build his place had he realized the type of reaction he would have received though (Larry King's show), so something just doesn't seem right about that -- I just have a hard time believing he wouldn't know how a project of this undertaking and location wouldn't cause a controversy or uproar.

Having said that, I love what I'm reading. And, no, I'm not tracking down stories and trying to research whatever this guy's said, I'm for the building of the place. I really couldn't care much less. This issue is nowhere near the top of my priorities and I've talked more here about it over the last few days than at any other time. But that begs the question: Why is this not being said, seen and heard more than it is?

Like I said earlier in the thread, the best possible scenario for all involved would be to see this Imam and Park51 embrace their fellow Americans with a concerted outreach and/or a noteworthy commemorative gesture placed on, in or around the community center for the victims of 9-11. Bloomberg, Giuliani, hell, you may even be able to find something redeemable in Bush if he were to go out and extend his hand and advance the cause of tolerance. Whatever, however and with whomever they do it, I can see no better way of bridging the gap and honoring those that lost their lives than with a sign of unity and solidarity for all Americans and those looking on from afar.


I'm sorry, but this was barely intelligible.

I'm sorry but your tact is less-than-bearable. :lol


Why are the people opposed on principle? Why do they think it's offensive? Is it because they don't want Muslims praying so close to Ground Zero?

Because they feel if they'd been in Park51's position -- as do I -- they wouldn't have done it. We both would have erred on the side of caution with such a sensitive issue in play. There's simply no reason to risk any kind of discontent or anything worse. It's a pros-cons thing, and neither of us see the type of pros to risk the cons (unless the type of stuff you've shared becomes the prevailing wisdom and the most seen and heard rhetoric moving forward and upon Park51's completion -- I, and I'm sure those whom I know to oppose, would see the pros then)


Also, there's a monster post that I posted that you missed responding to. It's there whenver you're ready.

My monstrosity of a post was an attempt to respond to that and others. The topic wandered grossly off the topic with mischaracterizations/misunderstandings and a delving into the semantics of morality, race and whatnot, and I have no desire to engage in an open-ended, never-ending subject like that -- I like to stick to one mind numbing point of contention at a time, tbh.


Given the above info, what's your principled stand against them building there?

I don't have one. I'm still for it. I don't have a stand against them. I did believe it to be pretty insensitive, but I've never stood in opposition.

And to that point, had I known and heard those particular questions asked and heard those answers, I wouldn't only be for it, I'd be championing it. Like I said, this was a complete non-issue to me and, thus, I haven't been trying to dig up quotes for all involved. But it begs the question again: Why the hell is this not the type of thing we're hearing and seeing more? I mean, not just a little here or there ... but is this not being hammered home by Park51 and their supporters/handlers?

I imagine there are plenty of people that could be swayed to being for this thing had they been armed with that particular knowledge and had it been something that one wouldn't have to search for on the computer -- plenty of people live full enough lives that searching for their own news just isn't all that feasible.

It's clear as day Park51 needs to step up their PR game and get their message out -- it's either been missed, hijacked or they're looking to fuck with people (and, again, I'm being facetious).


Blackjack's views are representative of quite a few millions Americans...radical? likely....true? hardly.....genuine? nope....dismissible? dangerous...

:wakeup

[Stringer_Bell]

I haven't opened this thread for awhile even though I kept seeing it bumped. Now I wish I avoided it longer. This place looks like an episode of Hoarders, gathering and sitting in your own filth of useless arguments. That is all. :p:

http://mygloss.com/buzz/files/2010/01/hoarders.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

I entered it for the first time in a long time this morning also. I just skimmed most of the posts. Too late to enter this fray.

[Blake]

I entered it for the first time in a long time this morning also. I just skimmed most of the posts. Too late to enter this fray.

:lol

there's nothing to really argue any more. It's more of a personal case study.



I have absolutely no idea why they would build a Muslim community center where they did.



Thanks. So they're bigots, at least by your logic -- you just don't know or can't understand.


Somehow he concluded that I think the builders are bigots.

People like this that claim victory after such a post fascinate (and entertain) me.

[Spurminator]

Why does one feel the need to build a mosque/community center within a stones throw of Ground Zero; specifically when there's a mosque 4 blocks away, over 100 mosques in the state and plenty of opportunities and locations to choose from that wouldn't even bring 9-11 into play? I don't see a necessity involved.

Why are there two donut carts on every street corner in Manhattan?

Have you ever been to New York?

[DarrinS]

Why are there two donut carts on every street corner in Manhattan?

Have you ever been to New York?


I have. There aren't enough Muslims in lower Manhattan to justify the size of Park51, Cordoba House, Muslim Land, or whatever they're calling it now.

[Winehole23]

So what? It's their development. If they build it too big the investors lose and the thing goes under. I'd think you'd encourage that, D.

[DarrinS]

So what? It's their development. If they build it too big the investors lose and the thing goes under. I'd think you'd encourage that, D.

I was specifically addressing the question, "Why are there two donut carts on every street corner in Manhattan?".

[MannyIsGod]

No, you weren't. No where in answering that question should the word Muslim come into play.

[Blake]

I was specifically addressing the question, "Why are there two donut carts on every street corner in Manhattan?".

your answer:


There aren't enough Muslims in lower Manhattan to justify the size of Park51, Cordoba House, Muslim Land, or whatever they're calling it now.

e-sigh.

[Spurminator]

I have. There aren't enough Muslims in lower Manhattan to justify the size of Park51, Cordoba House, Muslim Land, or whatever they're calling it now.

There are plenty Muslims in lower Manhattan.

My point being, the idea that it's redundant to build a mosque within six blocks of another mosque in Manhattan could only be suggested by someone who hasn't had much experience in Manhattan. And that's ignoring the fact that the other mosque is 40 years old while the new one would be a lot more modern.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm sure since Darrin knows he'd be happy to share with us the population density of Muslims in lower Manhattan and at what point such a density would provide the necessary population for the Muslim center?

[Blake]

There are plenty Muslims in lower Manhattan.

My point being, the idea that it's redundant to build a mosque within six blocks of another mosque in Manhattan could only be suggested by someone who hasn't had much experience in Manhattan. And that's ignoring the fact that the other mosque is 40 years old while the new one would be a lot more modern.

Possible extremists would never declare victory over a remodeled 40 year old mosque six further blocks away.

It must have a swimming pool or victory cannot be claimed.

[Winehole23]

I'm sure since Darrin knows he'd be happy to share with us the population density of Muslims in lower Manhattan and at what point such a density would provide the necessary population for the Muslim center?Sometimes the more elegant refutation is to concede he truth of whatever absurdity DarrinS pulls out of the air. His own points seldom lead where he thinks they do, and you can be sure he pays as much attention to contrary details as he does to backing up his own bs in the first place -- about zero.

[clambake]

I'm sure since Darrin knows he'd be happy to share with us the population density of Muslims in lower Manhattan and at what point such a density would provide the necessary population for the Muslim center?


Sometimes the more elegant refutation is to concede he truth of whatever absurdity DarrinS pulls out of the air. His own points seldom lead where he thinks they do, and you can be sure he pays as much attention to contrary details as he does to backing up his own bs in the first place -- about zero.

he could use one good day.

[Stringer_Bell]

Possible extremists would never declare victory over a remodeled 40 year old mosque six further blocks away.

It must have a swimming pool or victory cannot be claimed.

And don't forget the "prayer rooms" for Christians and Jews too, which will be extra tiny and without windows so they can gaze in awe at the lavish features of the Muslim prayer room. Revenge shall be schweeeeeet!

[LnGrrrR]

Prove you're not a racist! Prove you're not a terrorist!

What's the difference?

I haven't asked anyone to prove they're not a racist. I have asked them to prove the validity of their reasoning in wanting the mosque moved, countless times. I'm still waiting.

I'm beginning to realize the LnGrrrR I enjoyed outside of the Politics forum doesn't exist here. :lol

Still me, but I'm in "debate" mode. Remember, I'm only calling your arguments dumb, not you. :lol


Again, you're just failing to see what I was speaking to. You and your brethren here have been professing to know what's in the minds and hearts of ALL those that oppose. They couldn't have opposition without them being racist, Islamphobes, morons, and basically, beneath you -- there's definitely no lacking of the typical elitist rhetoric here.

Can you point out where I've done that? I don't claim knowledge of anything. I've merely asked for valid reasoning. That's not too demanding, is it?


There's a reason it sounded stupid, it was supposed to; as stupid as professing or believing that all whom are in opposition would be better off exterminated. Let's not beat around the bush, the brethren here can't stand these people. "How dare they oppose!" "Those fuckin racist!" "Ain't no one more tolerant than me!"

Again, you're twisting what I've said. Have I suggested that these people were virulently racist, that we're better off without them? I don't think I have. I've merely stated that I believe opposition to the mosque is based on invalid reasoning, with unfocused emotion at its core.


I'm not talking about moving the mosque. I'm still for it. The majority I know to oppose it, they simply oppose it on principle.

Didn't we already agree that you're arguing in their place though? So YOUR personal stance doesn't matter here; the stance that you're REPRESENTING (the idea that there are valid criticisms of building the mosque there) is what's at stake.


They're not gonna be out there in the streets trying to stop this. They're resigned to the fact that it will be built. They're simply hoping for the best, at this point, since -- like myself (and even yourself, to some degree) -- believe this story's become too big to not become propaganda with whatever the outcome. The resentment comes from this story ever becoming this big, something that was pretty much inevitable once Park51 decided to build where they did.

But it wasn't inevitable, and for you to insist that is strange. After all, they've had this in plans for awhile now. As I mentioned, the wife of the Imam even went on the Laura Ingraham show and received approval. It's not like Laura Ingraham is a whacko liberal or anything.

Furthermore, why solely blame the people building Park51? What about the media, for blowing the whole thing up? What about Republicans who used it to stir up patriotic fervor? Are they held accountable as well?


You may not like that, I don't fuckin' like it either, but it didn't take a genius to know this would become a huge issue.

And yet, even though they originally bought the space for the building in 2009, it somehow escaped the wrath of the people for a full year.


There aren't more emotionally-charged topics than 9-11 and deciding to build something on this scale (maybe if it's just a little hole-in-the-wall mosque with no pomp and circumstance around it it never gets noticed, I guess it's possible) wasn't going to go well in the public arena.

Are you aware of the actual scale? Tell me, what "pomp and circumstance" is going to be part of this community center? It sounds like you haven't actually read what the building will consist of, and are relying on mischaracterizations you've heard somewhere.


For a lot of people, yes, driving is a necessity. Public transportation ain't what it is in places like New York, Boston, etc. You want to get to work, you need to get there -- not sure if you've ever been or lived in San Antonio but I was born and lived there for a good chunk of my life ... you need a car (unless you happen to live right next to your work).

Actually, I lived for three and a half years in San Antonio, three of them without a vehicle. I was in the dorms at Randolph AFB... where I lived right next to my work. But I know people who get around anyways. The bus system in San Antonio isn't too bad. I've used friends for rides. I also used quite a few cabs, and a Greyhound to get to Austin a few times.


But you admit there's a tradeoff. What's the tradeoff for Park51? We know the cons but what are the pros? Just because? Because it's somewhat of an old stomping ground?

Are you telling me you can't see the pros of a community center focused on building alliances between people of different faiths?


Do you guys live in some utopia I should know about: "shouldn't be inflammatory at all," really? There's too much classroom here and not enough common sense. Why is it always what should be and not what is? The world and people around you are what they are, you deal with that accordingly.

I said it SHOULDN'T be inflammatory; I didn't say it wouldn't be. But, relatively speaking, the hijackers have about as much commonality with your everyday Muslim as they do with your everyday believer, your everyday Middle Eastern person, your everyday human. It's not logical to want to prevent Muslims from praying a certain distance from Ground Zero, when those Muslims neither agree with or espouse the violent actions of those extremists.


Islam is obviously associated with Terrorists. Should it not be? Associated, that is. It doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists, though. It means the bulk of today's terrorism is done in the name of Jihad and Allah. Maybe y'all just want to tiptoe around that, as some kind of way to not offend or come off as less-than-tolerant for your "open-minded" views, but it's just a fact. Is it not?

This is a gray area, and a separate topic. Just because someone does something in one's name, does not mean that is the sole motive for doing so. After all, if Bush says that God told him to do something, do we feel that's his sole motivating factor? (Some liberals would say so.) Name-dropping a God is just shorthand for saying, "What I do I feel is justified".

I do think the whole "suicide bomber" thing is unique, but I haven't done research enough to determine whether it was originally a uniquely RELIGIOUS action, or a uniquely REGIONAL action.


Again, the only thing ridiculous is you thinking my stance has changed or that I'm arguing something I'm not. You, and more so, Nancy, decided to keep on implying shit I never said or advancing the argument to a place that was irrelevant to the OP. The more that's written seems to take us further away from the point that was made: don't be an ignorant, intolerant person throwing inflammatory rhetoric under the guise of tolerance and understanding.

The argument is, and has always been, that there is no valid reason for wanting them to move the mosque. Blake and I have been on this side. You have been on the side that there ARE valid reasons (which these good people hold). That's the OP.

The whole "Is everyone racist" thing is a side argument you're holding with Blake. That's his reasoning for all the arguments on moving the mosque; since he has not heard a valid line of reasoning, he assumes that all who argue that side do so from a position of fear, racism, or some other malformed logic.


I essentially played devil's advocate for the same stance being taken by you and others as it pertains to Park51. I've put the burden of proof on you to prove innocence.

How could he prove his innocence? After all, he could say "I built it here because it's the perfect location for what we needed, and we couldn't afford any other spot", and one could still say, "Sure... he SAYS that, but what's the REAL reason?" :lol

Anyways, as I said up-thread, you are arguing on behalf of your "good people". YOUR stance is somewhat irrelevant. (No offense.)


But that begs the question: Why is this not being said, seen and heard more than it is?

Because Republicans are better at message control than Democrats? You got me. If you were curious about his intentions, why didn't you look at the website? Now multiply you by a few hundred thousand others who didn't bother to read, or wouldn't trust his own words anyways, and you have your answer. :)


And to that point, had I known and heard those particular questions asked and heard those answers, I wouldn't only be for it, I'd be championing it.

So you'll take this back to those "good people" and try to change their mind?


Why the hell is this not the type of thing we're hearing and seeing more? I mean, not just a little here or there ... but is this not being hammered home by Park51 and their supporters/handlers?

The view that the DEFAULT position is that this guy is trying to somehow slander Americans, and it's on the SUPPORTERS of Park51 to prove his good intentions, is very telling, wouldn't you say?


I imagine there are plenty of people that could be swayed to being for this thing had they been armed with that particular knowledge and had it been something that one wouldn't have to search for on the computer -- plenty of people live full enough lives that searching for their own news just isn't all that feasible.

Well, most of the questions that you had were right there on the website. Took a few seconds to google. How come you didn't bother to look it up? A bit of willful ignorance? :D

If you're arguing that these answers should be in the MSM, I would say they probably are, and your "good people" just aren't watching the right news channels. (I dislike the MSM, so you won't get much love from me in that area.)

You railed against Blake for assuming the intentions/motives of another person, and yet, here you seemingly justify other's assumptions of the Imam's motives. Even when a person could take a few seconds to look up the info on google, or read the NYTimes article that WH23 posted to. The info's there. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.


It's clear as day Park51 needs to step up their PR game and get their message out -- it's either been missed, hijacked or they're looking to fuck with people (and, again, I'm being facetious).

This is why it's important to fight back against people who hold irrational/invalid thoughts, and would use them to sway public influence against those in the right.

[LnGrrrR]

I have. There aren't enough Muslims in lower Manhattan to justify the size of Park51, Cordoba House, Muslim Land, or whatever they're calling it now.

DarrinS: Knower of all Muslims in NY city.

[Blackjack]

LnGrrrR, I'll respond in full to your whole post a little later on, probably late tonight -- I just jotted this down before I had the chance to "forget." :D

My contentions:

1.) How is the burden of proof placed upon the accused; i.e., how can one assign the moniker of racist or Islamaphobe to any-and-all opposition or associate Park51's project with terrorism or terrorists?
Innocent until proven guilty, the burden lies with the prosecution -- tolerance goes both ways.

2.)What does one hope to accomplish by seeking victory and not reconciliation? Some King dude -- whom I'm told knew a thing or two about civil rights -- apparently didn't believe in striving for "victory."

3.) If indeed Park51's intentions are as the Imam states in the Q & A LnGrrrR cited -- for this project to be something that brings all people together rather than divide -- they've failed in catering to the sensitivities of the circumstance. Whether it's the president, a pundit or anyone being honest with themselves, the issue of 9-11 and Ground Zero is about as sensitive and emotionally-charged an issue as there is. With that in mind, it's simply not enough to be in the "right" or have the right to move forward with a project without regards to that sensitivity -- if the goal is indeed to bring people together and promote tolerance and understanding, that is -- you can't profess or act by what "should be," you have to address and account for "what is."

Bridging the gap and building consensus and understanding often takes more effort than it should. There's a real-world, with real-people and real-life sensibilities and sensitivities that have to be considered -- sometimes even catered to. If your intentions are to bring people (of all faiths, cultures and colors) together, it's simply what has to be done. You can't expect people from all walks of life and all across the country to know exactly who and what it is you stand for and the goals and aspirations for your project, when it's not plainly stated and you're not out in front of the message. You have to put the onus on yourself to get the right message out, it can be up to the whims of politicians or the press.

This issue doesn't take any kind of real precedence in most people's lives and a lot of those same people live full enough lives as it is -- they don't have the time or willingness to spend the little time they do have digging for answers or watching every bit of coverage there is to know about the Park51 project. If you're not living in the Northeast, chances are this topic is nothing more than a passing conversation or argument. It's just not-all-that important. They simply see an unnecessary and unneeded controversy; an unnecessary and unneeded project that could potentially be the source for the next idiot to take some kind of action in its light. "What gives," they say. It just doesn't make sense -- much the same way their opposition doesn't make any sense to you whom question their tolerance and character.

The people of Park51 have failed to address appropriately why it is they needed to buy and build where they did -- there has been no unmistakable outreach. ...Nothing that would lead the average American to believe this place was indeed about celebrating what it is to be an American and a way of showing solidarity and unity while sending a strong, clear message to extremists everywhere that the division lies with them. So Park51 was either naive or inept with regards to PR or -- In the most conspiratorial -- the Imam's rhetoric is simply disingenuous.

After reading and now seeing some video (and, yes, I'm just now learning about this Imam in greater context and detail -- I've been pro-Park51 all along and didn't feel the need to justify my belief) of the Imam addressing the concerns of many, I'm apt to give him the benefit of a doubt (something, again, I didn't need to be pro-Park51). But they need to take back the message and get out in front of this thing. I don't care if it's some kind of huge peaceful rally or a really well-done press conference with a lot of the principle players involved from 9-11 ... do something. The bigger and more seen the better. Get it done and let's move the hell on.

In the words of a very wise poster here: "The country's going bankrupt."

[Blackjack]

Somehow he concluded that I think the builders are bigots.

People like this that claim victory after such a post fascinate (and entertain) me.

lol Nancy trying to spin owning himself. :rollin

[LnGrrrR]

1.) How is the burden of proof placed upon the accused; i.e., how can one assign the moniker of racist or Islamaphobe to any-and-all opposition or associate Park51's project with terrorism or terrorists?

The burden of proof is merely to provide an adequate reason they should move. 1) We don't usually require burden of proof for people to build something on their own property and 2) even so, the builders have already stated their reasons for choosing that area.

So therefore, a rational argument is needed which explains why the mosque should be moved. None have been provided so far, that I can see. Whether that's due to racism, intolerance, etc etc, I haven't made a decision one way or another. I don't know why you keep bringing this up to me though, since I haven't AFAIK called anyone racist or Islamophobic.


Innocent until proven guilty, the burden lies with the prosecution -- tolerance goes both ways.

I would say that there's a much lessened burden of proof to show that the builders aren't trying to claim victory over America by building a mosque, than there is to prove otherwise.


2.)What does one hope to accomplish by seeking victory and not reconciliation? Some King dude -- whom I'm told knew a thing or two about civil rights -- apparently didn't believe in striving for "victory."

Sure he did. The whole "I have a dream" speech is all about victory... a day where his dream would be realized, and the 'victory' of that day. And as I posted earlier, the community center is pretty much founded on trying to bridge the gaps between faiths. Do you think the other side is trying just as hard to understand and reconcile?


3.) If indeed Park51's intentions are as the Imam states in the Q & A LnGrrrR cited -- for this project to be something that brings all people together rather than divide -- they've failed in catering to the sensitivities of the circumstance.

Ha! What about the sensitivities of the Muslims who plan on using the community center? Do their sensitivities not come into play?

Why do you assume that a mosque near Ground Zero would automatically be offensive? Is there something inherently offensive about Muslims being allowed to pray within 2 blocks of Ground Zero?


Whether it's the president, a pundit or anyone being honest with themselves, the issue of 9-11 and Ground Zero is about as sensitive and emotionally-charged an issue as there is. With that in mind, it's simply not enough to be in the "right" or have the right to move forward with a project without regards to that sensitivity -- if the goal is indeed to bring people together and promote tolerance and understanding, that is -- you can't profess or act by what "should be," you have to address and account for "what is."

If I said I was offended by this idea, would you then give in to my sensibilities and admit you were wrong? After all, this isn't about who's right, so please just admit that I am.

In fact, Blake might even say you're offending his sensitivities by not taking his side. If your goal is to build understanding with Blake, should you start by taking his sensitivity into account and modifying your beliefs?


Bridging the gap and building consensus and understanding often takes more effort than it should. There's a real-world, with real-people and real-life sensibilities and sensitivities that have to be considered -- sometimes even catered to. If your intentions are to bring people (of all faiths, cultures and colors) together, it's simply what has to be done. You can't expect people from all walks of life and all across the country to know exactly who and what it is you stand for and the goals and aspirations for your project, when it's not plainly stated and you're not out in front of the message. You have to put the onus on yourself to get the right message out, it can be up to the whims of politicians or the press.

So, in order to build understanding, the builders must admit their wrong-doing. No onus lies on the people claiming it's offensive to give a RATIONAL reason why it's offensive though. Merely claiming "it's offensive!" should be enough to convince the Muslims to move a few blocks down.


This issue doesn't take any kind of real precedence in most people's lives and a lot of those same people live full enough lives as it is -- they don't have the time or willingness to spend the little time they do have digging for answers or watching every bit of coverage there is to know about the Park51 project. If you're not living in the Northeast, chances are this topic is nothing more than a passing conversation or argument. It's just not-all-that important.

I don't know why you keep on bringing this up. As I said before, even if it wasn't important, it has no bearing on the logic of those against the move. Furthermore, I think it is quite important. Not the mosque, but the very real racial questions it brings forth.


They simply see an unnecessary and unneeded controversy; an unnecessary and unneeded project that could potentially be the source for the next idiot to take some kind of action in its light. "What gives," they say. It just doesn't make sense -- much the same way their opposition doesn't make any sense to you whom question their tolerance and character.

Have I questioned their tolerance and character? Please point that out. You keep saying I'm calling them racist; I'm saying I'm calling them uninformed and unable to provide a rational argument.

There's alot of things in this world that are unnecessary, and might cause unintentional harm. Yet, we're still free to pursue them... that's what makes America great, last time I checked. Why are these people so concerned about what idiots think? If they're idiots that are bent on using something as an excuse, they'll find some sort of justification, one way or another.


The people of Park51 have failed to address appropriately why it is they needed to buy and build where they did -- there has been no unmistakable outreach. ...Nothing that would lead the average American to believe this place was indeed about celebrating what it is to be an American and a way of showing solidarity and unity while sending a strong, clear message to extremists everywhere that the division lies with them. So Park51 was either naive or inept with regards to PR or -- In the most conspiratorial -- the Imam's rhetoric is simply disingenuous.

So because people didn't bother to ask the Imam, or his PR wasn't good enough, he should move the mosque? The ignorance of the person asking for the move justifies the move. Interesting thought.


After reading and now seeing some video (and, yes, I'm just now learning about this Imam in greater context and detail -- I've been pro-Park51 all along and didn't feel the need to justify my belief) of the Imam addressing the concerns of many, I'm apt to give him the benefit of a doubt (something, again, I didn't need to be pro-Park51). But they need to take back the message and get out in front of this thing. I don't care if it's some kind of huge peaceful rally or a really well-done press conference with a lot of the principle players involved from 9-11 ... do something. The bigger and more seen the better. Get it done and let's move the hell on.

Funny how you're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not some secret evil Muslim terrorist... as if that should be the default. Again, very telling, isn't it?

[MannyIsGod]

LnGrrrR, I'll respond in full to your whole post a little later on, probably late tonight -- I just jotted this down before I had the chance to "forget." :D

My contentions:

1.) How is the burden of proof placed upon the accused; i.e., how can one assign the moniker of racist or Islamaphobe to any-and-all opposition or associate Park51's project with terrorism or terrorists?
Innocent until proven guilty, the burden lies with the prosecution -- tolerance goes both ways.

2.)What does one hope to accomplish by seeking victory and not reconciliation? Some King dude -- whom I'm told knew a thing or two about civil rights -- apparently didn't believe in striving for "victory."

3.) If indeed Park51's intentions are as the Imam states in the Q & A LnGrrrR cited -- for this project to be something that brings all people together rather than divide -- they've failed in catering to the sensitivities of the circumstance. Whether it's the president, a pundit or anyone being honest with themselves, the issue of 9-11 and Ground Zero is about as sensitive and emotionally-charged an issue as there is. With that in mind, it's simply not enough to be in the "right" or have the right to move forward with a project without regards to that sensitivity -- if the goal is indeed to bring people together and promote tolerance and understanding, that is -- you can't profess or act by what "should be," you have to address and account for "what is."

Bridging the gap and building consensus and understanding often takes more effort than it should. There's a real-world, with real-people and real-life sensibilities and sensitivities that have to be considered -- sometimes even catered to. If your intentions are to bring people (of all faiths, cultures and colors) together, it's simply what has to be done. You can't expect people from all walks of life and all across the country to know exactly who and what it is you stand for and the goals and aspirations for your project, when it's not plainly stated and you're not out in front of the message. You have to put the onus on yourself to get the right message out, it can be up to the whims of politicians or the press.

This issue doesn't take any kind of real precedence in most people's lives and a lot of those same people live full enough lives as it is -- they don't have the time or willingness to spend the little time they do have digging for answers or watching every bit of coverage there is to know about the Park51 project. If you're not living in the Northeast, chances are this topic is nothing more than a passing conversation or argument. It's just not-all-that important. They simply see an unnecessary and unneeded controversy; an unnecessary and unneeded project that could potentially be the source for the next idiot to take some kind of action in its light. "What gives," they say. It just doesn't make sense -- much the same way their opposition doesn't make any sense to you whom question their tolerance and character.

The people of Park51 have failed to address appropriately why it is they needed to buy and build where they did -- there has been no unmistakable outreach. ...Nothing that would lead the average American to believe this place was indeed about celebrating what it is to be an American and a way of showing solidarity and unity while sending a strong, clear message to extremists everywhere that the division lies with them. So Park51 was either naive or inept with regards to PR or -- In the most conspiratorial -- the Imam's rhetoric is simply disingenuous.

After reading and now seeing some video (and, yes, I'm just now learning about this Imam in greater context and detail -- I've been pro-Park51 all along and didn't feel the need to justify my belief) of the Imam addressing the concerns of many, I'm apt to give him the benefit of a doubt (something, again, I didn't need to be pro-Park51). But they need to take back the message and get out in front of this thing. I don't care if it's some kind of huge peaceful rally or a really well-done press conference with a lot of the principle players involved from 9-11 ... do something. The bigger and more seen the better. Get it done and let's move the hell on.

In the words of a very wise poster here: "The country's going bankrupt."

In the same post you asked for proof that much of this movement is based upon Islamophobia only to then mention that AFTER your received more information on the subject you are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not extremists?

In other words, your initial position was to assume these Muslims were extremists.

That is a fairly telling post.

[Blake]

lol Nancy trying to spin owning himself. :rollin

Not at all.

You directly stated this:


So they're [the builders are] bigots, at least by your [Blake's] logic

The amount of horsewhipping you continue to willingly take in this thread is astounding.

:corn:

hell, I hadn't been in the Spurs forum in a while......it appears you are taking quite a beating over there as well.

This messageboard has not been good for you. :(

[Blackjack]

LnGrrR, we need a chain of events reset because you're misconstruing what I'm saying and whom and what I'm speaking to.

First off, please read my initial post and the subsequent responses from Blake. I simply stated that Krauthammer was correct in saying opposition would essentially be demonized, minimalized and called bigots, basically, for simply opposing. And those people that would resort to that were people I'd classify as "lemmings," as their only goal is to see their side to the finish line -- no debate or acknowledgment to their political foyle, simply "victory" at any-and-all cost.

That was the only contention I had coming into this thread. The only one.
But Blake apparently took exception to finding out he apparently met qualification for the generic definition I made for a "lemming" in the initial post. Blake attempted to cite the irony in my post from the defining of a lemming. He believed that was somehow name-calling, though it wasn't directed at anyone and the post was not a response to anyone. It was simply calling a spade a spade. Lemmings are out there, they are what they are, I just made a reference to what made them who they are.

So that failure led Blake to look to find another way to save face and get a leg up -- which was a complete creation of his own, as my intention was never to get into an argument/debate on the topic. I stated my opinion -- a pretty benign one, if I do say (and I do) -- and all of a sudden I'm in a back and forth with Blake while he chases his tail for no reason. The guy's trying to debate the semantics of morality to pick himself up from off the mat, a place he put himself on.

This is where Nancy's persona originated:


what do you personally think the reason is that people don't want the mosque to be built near Ground Zero?

I personally believe it's an emotional issue, one that tends to devolve in a moral issue, or just the belief that anything having a hint of insensitivity to the victims of 9-11 or would be seen as a slap in the face to Americans at large, would be better off built elsewhere.

I was asked to give my opinion on someone else's view. I did. I also happened to state that I respected their view in disagreement, in the context of Blake trying to paint them as bigots. They're not. They just believe it to be a wrong and/or insensitive move on the center's behalf. They don't see the wisdom in building there from what they've been able to ascertain. Until recently, I didn't either ... it just didn't weigh into my decision. But Blake wanted to debate morality, an aside and something that was never pertinent to the posts I made.

If somebody believes they were placed in the exact same position as this Imam and were confronted with the same possibility/opportunity the Park51 project has and they feel they'd err on the side of caution and build elsewhere -- citing it's what they believe would be the "right" thing to do under the circumstance and given the surroundings -- is that akin to morality? Right and wrong? Does that make someone a monster, racist or Islamaphobe for having that belief? I don't believe so. It's just a difference of opinion or the way in which someone's built. It just is what it is, and them not seeing eye-to-eye with me doesn't offend or threaten my belief -- I imagine insecurity in one's self or argument plays a lot into the people trying to shut down an opposing point of view.

But it didn't matter what I said in regards to morality. It was only one of the potential things I alluded to in the post and Blake decided to grab that sonbitch by the horns and make it his own. That that (morality) was somehow the real point of contention; it never was, not on my behalf. There's simply no end to that discussion and I guess he figured he'd win a war of attrition. What he failed to realize is, Blackjack's not only Omnipotent, he's also a message board super villain in his spare time: The Attritionist. Real talk, sons.

Somewhere in the midst of that, LnGrrrR, you interjected yourself into the discussion. There was a disconnect right from the start but I just couldn't see it until the last two posts. It appears you've been thinking my argument had to do with the validity of an opposing argument and, thus, have been looking for me to validate the opposing argument for the most part. But I'll I was speaking to was the fact that I could respect a particular part of the opposition's view (family and friends of mine). They're decent human beings who just happen to believe they wouldn't look to purchase or build the community center if they were to switch places with Park51's camp. They simply believe erring on the side of caution would be the "right" thing to do. I disagree -- but they're not racist or Islamaphobic. Is it a valid argument? If you share the belief, yes. If not, no. It's a difference of sensibilities and sensitivities, that's my belief, anyway.

And the other disconnect came when you posted something to the effect of sharing Blake's view. I know now you were speaking to the validation of an opposing argument and not the proving of a negative (i.e., I can't come up with another reason other than they're racist; I simply don't know of any other option, therefore they're a racist). I'm not sure how far back that started but a good bit of the fault lies with me, as I was unable to discern exactly where everyone was coming from . My contention has only ever been about the demonizing and minimalization of a dissenting view, simply on the basis of it being a dissenting view. I resented lemmings and their encouragers, which I stated pretty generically.

Now to your post (and lol Nancy's attempted spin job :rollin).

[Blackjack]

But it wasn't inevitable, and for you to insist that is strange. After all, they've had this in plans for awhile now. As I mentioned, the wife of the Imam even went on the Laura Ingraham show and received approval. It's not like Laura Ingraham is a whacko liberal or anything.

Yes, it was inevitable. I love my country but I also know my people. If it's not one side it's the other and with an issue like this and in the particular times we're living in, yes. This becoming some kind of controversy was inevitable -- it just needed the focus of a slow news cycle and a little urgency from knowing it was actually going to come to fruition.


Furthermore, why solely blame the people building Park51? What about the media, for blowing the whole thing up? What about Republicans who used it to stir up patriotic fervor? Are they held accountable as well?

Absolutely. But if you want something done right, do it yourself, or so the saying goes. They dropped the ball, plain and simple -- If their intentions are to make this a unifying, everyone-should-get-behind-us project, that is. If not, then don't.



Are you aware of the actual scale? Tell me, what "pomp and circumstance" is going to be part of this community center? It sounds like you haven't actually read what the building will consist of, and are relying on mischaracterizations you've heard somewhere.

That was definitely not what I was alluding to. I was simply stating this may have not been an issue had this been a simple hole-in-the-wall mosque and not a community center. I wasn't speaking to this being some kind of super mall or something. :lol It was just a flippant kind of "maybe there'd be an exception to the rule" kinda thing.


Actually, I lived for three and a half years in San Antonio, three of them without a vehicle. I was in the dorms at Randolph AFB... where I lived right next to my work. But I know people who get around anyways. The bus system in San Antonio isn't too bad. I've used friends for rides. I also used quite a few cabs, and a Greyhound to get to Austin a few times.

Depends on where you live and the type of support system you've got around you, really. I know SA's grown quite a bit, though. It's still spread out pretty good but there's a whole lot of clusters/communities that have all you really need within a few blocks now.

But the point was, driving is a means to live one's life for most. In some cases, it is an absolute necessity -- I live out in a rural area that's about 40 minutes away from the grocery store and 15 from the convenient store. Driving's definitely a necessity. Ain't no buses comin' out this way.


Are you telling me you can't see the pros of a community center focused on building alliances between people of different faiths?

No, I'm telling you I couldn't see the pros for having it within 2 blocks from Ground Zero. Are those pros contingent on this community center's placement? Is it necessary for them to be there? It doesn't matter if it is or not, as far as I'm concerned. But it's definitely a better question then asking someone to prove they're not a bigot (which is what Blake is prone to do).


I said it SHOULDN'T be inflammatory; I didn't say it wouldn't be. But, relatively speaking, the hijackers have about as much commonality with your everyday Muslim as they do with your everyday believer, your everyday Middle Eastern person, your everyday human. It's not logical to want to prevent Muslims from praying a certain distance from Ground Zero, when those Muslims neither agree with or espouse the violent actions of those extremists.

Again, if you believe you were put in the same position as the people in charge of Park51 to build this place and can honestly say to yourself you wouldn't feel right about going through with it, you're just not going to see eye-to-eye. The equating of these particular Muslims and the extremist element that are responsible for launching the attacks of 9-11, is an advancement of the argument that one (this particular opposition) doesn't need to get to. Their objection is in the thought process prior to the purchase of Park51, not what's transpired since or could transpire after.

But I personally agree with the sentiment of that text. :tu


This is a gray area, and a separate topic. Just because someone does something in one's name, does not mean that is the sole motive for doing so. After all, if Bush says that God told him to do something, do we feel that's his sole motivating factor? (Some liberals would say so.) Name-dropping a God is just shorthand for saying, "What I do I feel is justified".

I don't think there's any doubt there's an association, I think the tricky and gray part is to make sure it doesn't become the association. The times we're living in don't make it as easy as it should be for some.


I do think the whole "suicide bomber" thing is unique, but I haven't done research enough to determine whether it was originally a uniquely RELIGIOUS action, or a uniquely REGIONAL action.

Again, I think it's just relevant to the times. People aren't seeking context from yesteryear to compare notes, they're simply turning on the news and Islamic extremism just happens to be what the cool kids are doing these days (again, facetious, and probably too flippant).



The argument is, and has always been, that there is no valid reason for wanting them to move the mosque. Blake and I have been on this side. You have been on the side that there ARE valid reasons (which these good people hold). That's the OP.

That's where the disconnect is. That's simply not the case -- hopefully what I just posted clears that up.


How could he prove his innocence? After all, he could say "I built it here because it's the perfect location for what we needed, and we couldn't afford any other spot", and one could still say, "Sure... he SAYS that, but what's the REAL reason?" :lol

Again, that was the point. It's just the same as saying: "I'm not a racist!" Yeah, cool story, racist (but that, as I've found, was an argument reserved for Nancy and not yourself).


Anyways, as I said up-thread, you are arguing on behalf of your "good people". YOUR stance is somewhat irrelevant. (No offense.)

No, I've argued that my friends and family -- my "good people" -- are just that: good people. The fact that they oppose on the basis of the initial process not being something they believed they would have done -- what they believed would have been the right thing to do for all involved -- doesn't make them bigoted. That's why the opposition I discussed have come to be known as "good people." They were painted as being otherwise by Blake for their opposition.


Because Republicans are better at message control than Democrats? You got me.

Did you not see the campaign Obama ran? The Republicans serving now have yet to form a message much less control one. That's definitely not the case.


If you were curious about his intentions, why didn't you look at the website?

I supported it from the jump. I was perfectly comfortable with my position.


Now multiply you by a few hundred thousand others who didn't bother to read, or wouldn't trust his own words anyways, and you have your answer. :)

I agree there are hundreds of thousands of people like myself (probably millions), for and against the Park51 project, that hadn't seen or heard his words. But that's a problem. If you couldn't care less about the perception of your project or the questioning of its wisdom, then there's nothing wrong with going about things the way they've done. I don't personally have a problem with it, it's just not going to be as welcomed or easily accepted as it could be.


So you'll take this back to those "good people" and try to change their mind?

As much of a smartass statement as that reads, yes. I'd love to be able to paint a fuller or more clear picture and see what comes from it.


The view that the DEFAULT position is that this guy is trying to somehow slander Americans, and it's on the SUPPORTERS of Park51 to prove his good intentions, is very telling, wouldn't you say?

It's not the default position that this guy is somehow trying to slander Americans, at least that's not what I've suggested. But the wisdom is certainly questionable and an insensitive perception has definitely been gleaned.

I think the conventional wisdom from most I've talked to is he couldn't care less what they thought. I'm not sure if they like long walks on the beach, but I'd imagine believing the Imam felt that way must be a turnoff, am I right? Is this thing on!?!


You railed against Blake for assuming the intentions/motives of another person, and yet, here you seemingly justify other's assumptions of the Imam's motives. Even when a person could take a few seconds to look up the info on google, or read the NYTimes article that WH23 posted to. The info's there. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

The whole point of the questioning was for those that are looking for the opposition to prove their innocence to have to look at it from the other side; to see exactly what it is you're asking people to do to prove they're in fact whom they say they are. That's definitely been lost in translation. Again, I'm still for Park51's development. I've just been put in the position to defend people that shouldn't need to be defended (and there's been a whole lot of miscommunication, misunderstandings and off-the-mark comings and goings out, as the convolution of this thread reaches stellar levels).


This is why it's important to fight back against people who hold irrational/invalid thoughts, and would use them to sway public influence against those in the right.

There's never anything wrong with presenting a full picture and as much knowledge as humanly possible. But the issue still has to be important enough to the person to go out and seek that information. This issue wasn't for me but I didn't need to know all there is to know to make a decision -- even if this still isn't up for vote.


Sure he did. The whole "I have a dream" speech is all about victory... a day where his dream would be realized, and the 'victory' of that day. And as I posted earlier, the community center is pretty much founded on trying to bridge the gaps between faiths.

With all due respect, you're really missing the boat on King, IMO. Victory was in the cause, it the steps and strides they made, not in the vanquishing of the opponent. Seeking reconciliation was to know that man had to live side by side with each other. They needed each other to prosper. They needed to change hearts and minds; tearing the other side down or looking to beat them over the head would do nothing but help them in the short-term, if that. King knew if if you were in the right and did right by your fellow man day-in and day-out, held your head up high, didn't pity yourself and didn't hold to the resentment (something no one would have blamed them for), their day would come. He and his message endures today because of the way he conducted himself, the way he led the movement and because of the way he sought reconciliation -- not victory -- to plant the seeds for generations to come.

As for the center, there's definitely some similarities to the civil rights movement. And I'd suggest if leaders like King didn't put their face out there, put their message out into the public square and do everything within their power to be seen and heard, we'd be much worse off today. Muslims could use some good, visible and outspoken leaders. Maybe this Imam or one of his followers/members has what it takes.


Do you think the other side is trying just as hard to understand and reconcile?

Momma never told you two wrongs don't make a right?


Ha! What about the sensitivities of the Muslims who plan on using the community center? Do their sensitivities not come into play?

Why do you assume that a mosque near Ground Zero would automatically be offensive? Is there something inherently offensive about Muslims being allowed to pray within 2 blocks of Ground Zero?

Follow with me now: If the intentions are to make this a non-controversial issue and one that can be used in bridging the gap, building consensus, finding support from many that oppose, they've failed to take the right approach PR-wise.

Again, they don't have to do any of that. It's not going to offend me if they don't. But if the goal truly is to turn this ridiculous controversy into something that could ultimately be somewhat transformative in the right kind of way, they're going to have to do a little more -- Go out of their way a little more. Given the pros and cons in that particular scenario, I'd say the pros far outweigh the cons -- small price to pay to tear down some needless barriers.


If I said I was offended by this idea, would you then give in to my sensibilities and admit you were wrong? After all, this isn't about who's right, so please just admit that I am.

If it's just 1 LnGrrrR, no. But if the cause is worthy and my telling you you're right and I'm wrong will have any way of advancing said cause: I'm right and you're wrong (again, facetious).


In fact, Blake might even say you're offending his sensitivities by not taking his side. If your goal is to build understanding with Blake, should you start by taking his sensitivity into account and modifying your beliefs?

No. I love them types of questions.


So, in order to build understanding, the builders must admit their wrong-doing. No onus lies on the people claiming it's offensive to give a RATIONAL reason why it's offensive though. Merely claiming "it's offensive!" should be enough to convince the Muslims to move a few blocks down.

No. Why does one have to be in the wrong to engender or seek good will? Was MLK in the wrong with all that he did, or did he simply believe the cause was worthy and the extra work and effort was just the price he had to pay to fulfill his people's promise?

And I still don't believe I know anymore than 2 people that would even somewhat find it a good idea to move the center now.


I don't know why you keep on bringing this up. As I said before, even if it wasn't important, it has no bearing on the logic of those against the move. Furthermore, I think it is quite important. Not the mosque, but the very real racial questions it brings forth.

And I don't know why you keep on bringing up the rationale to move. :lol

You seem to think all of the opposition is the most vocal and adamant, when in reality, that's usually the vocal minority. Like I said and have said before, the opposition comes from the initial thought process. The actual purchasing of the property. The average American hadn't heard about it until recently, so it never became anything of real great contention. Slow news cycle's and a couple of alarmists/paranoids later. .... And voila, instant controversy!

The reason it has bearing is because it happens to just be a fact: most people don't have the time to research a topic like this or frequent a board like this daily if they're looking to find out more. The regulars here for each and every ST forum are the exception not the norm. The message has to find its way to people better, especially when this could go from a "meh" issue to something historically important (if done right).


There's alot of things in this world that are unnecessary, and might cause unintentional harm. Yet, we're still free to pursue them... that's what makes America great, last time I checked. Why are these people so concerned about what idiots think? If they're idiots that are bent on using something as an excuse, they'll find some sort of justification, one way or another.

Concerned about what idiots might do, thinking if it leads to actions. But there's no getting around the Park51 project is unnecessary. It might prove fruitful, it could even be a historic and landmark achievement if they find a way take back the message and put a real face on this thing. But it's not necessary. And given all the controversy, misgivings and times we're living in, this place will unfortunately be subject to some kind of scrutiny and quite possibly susceptible to something worse -- neither of which are things one would like to see, and both could have been avoided.

The NBA loves upside and there's no doubt this center has tons, IMO. I believe the pros to outweigh the cons, but we'll see. Others obviously don't agree with me (those I've alluded to) but they'll see soon enough as well.


So because people didn't bother to ask the Imam, or his PR wasn't good enough, he should move the mosque? The ignorance of the person asking for the move justifies the move. Interesting thought.

No. THEY. SHOULD. NOT. MOVE. THE. MOSQUE, tbh. :hat

What they should do is put a full-court press on through the media, find a way to Americanize this sonbitch with the biggest and most obnoxious ceremony possible and do everything in their power to make the opening of Park51's community center a day in which people will look back on as a watershed moment for the Muslim-American.

Stop looking at putting any extra work or effort in as a means to prove innocence and start looking at it as a means to further the cause. This is part in parcel with the realization of "The Dream."


Funny how you're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not some secret evil Muslim terrorist... as if that should be the default. Again, very telling, isn't it?

Maybe a bad choice of words but I'd figure you'd know better by now. I had no inclination one way or the other about what his intentions were. They didn't matter and I didn't know enough about him personally to give an honest opinion. I assumed there was nothing sinister or out of line with his intentions, but I didn't know enough to really feel that I knew.

What I was trying to say was, after seeing his words and hearing him speak over the last few days, I'm apt to believing his intentions are pure. I'm much more closer to knowing than assuming. I'm much closer to championing, not simply supporting or just being "pro."


In the same post you asked for proof that much of this movement is based upon Islamophobia only to then mention that AFTER your received more information on the subject you are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not extremists?

Late to the game, bro. But hopefully the last response to LnGrrrR addresses that.


In other words, your initial position was to assume these Muslims were extremists.

Those definitely are other words.


That is a fairly telling post.

Apparently not. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

A lot of words in this thread :wakeup

[LnGrrrR]

Blackjack,

I'm a bit tired at the moment, so forgive me for eschewing the line-by-line post. Glad you finally noticed the arugment I was getting at and let off the racist/Islamophobic one, which is at best tangental.

Ther'es a big difference between "I would probably choose somewhere else originally" and "I would move it as it stands today". As you stated, the reasons for moving it are invalid, in my view. I've not heard a valid reason yet.

When it comes to whether they should have built it there in the first place, or whether that's insensitive or not, I would still argue that the only way it could be "insensitive" is if people chose to associate ALL Muslims with the act of a few terrorists. Wouldn't you agree?

Now, real world, of course people are going to do that. But rationally speaking, does that make sense? Is a mosque in and of itself offensive? If not, why is a mosque so close to Ground Zero offensive?

Should the Imam have better PR? Probably. Would it help? Sure. I don't think that speaks to the morality/rightness of the building issue though. Neither does the "necessity" of the community center/mosque. Does the amount of Muslims in NY city that would use these facilities affect the morality behind it being there in the first place?

Regarding Dr. King... you have a different sense of the word "victory" than I do, I think. You regard "victory" as one would in chess, with one winner and one loser. I was thinking victory along the lines of goals realized, in which Dr. King's dreams were brought that much closer to fruition through his actions.

Finally, I don't think anyone's argued that you didn't support it. But by saying that you knew "good people" who didn't support, you in effect argue for them. It's like if you said that 2+2=4, and I said I had a good friend who could prove that 2+2=5. You would then take me to task, because by stating the beliefs of my good friend, I give validity to their beliefs. Capische? :)

Out for the night; figured I'd keep it short and sweet. Well, relatively short anyways.

[Winehole23]

Brevity is the soul of wit but an alien country to Blackjack. Worst I've ever seen here for saying so little with so many words.

And people thought I was bad. :lol

[Winehole23]

he could use one good day.One of the miracles of Spurstalk is that DarrinS never has a good day. He just about always ends up kicking his own ass.

[Winehole23]

Without even realizing it. He never gets the benefit of screwing up. He never gets out of the rut. Like Blackjack, he just says he same things over and over again.

[Winehole23]

DarrinS's posts are gratifyingly brief, I'll give him that.

[redzero]

Brevity is the soul of wit but an alien country to Blackjack. Worst I've ever seen here for saying so little with so many words.

And people thought I was bad. :lol

I thought my posts in a topic about God in The Club were long, but goddamn.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm sorry your initial post was more than a bad choice of a words. It was a clear statement that you did not hold the initial position that the people involved with this mosque were anything but extremists but after reading more into things you have given them the benefit of the doubt.

I honestly don't have the patience at the moment to read the line by line posts. I find that reply method tedious at best (I do it from time to time as well but its still a bad way to carry on a debate, imo) because you end up having to read back 3840u3098304 posts to find out wtf the context of the situation is.

But your last paragraph was quite clear. You can't just go back and say "I had no inclinations" when you just stated you did. That you simply realize that you shouldn't or didn't want to have those inclinations is irrelevant to the fact that you clearly stated that you did. So which post do I believe BJ?

On a similar note, if we played word association with the American public then what would they (and you) associate with the word Muslim? Do you think the general public would respond with something other than terrorist as the largest answer?

[Blackjack]

Alright, so I, Blackjack, am a lot of things. What I, Blackjack, am apparently not -- at least since discovering a message board and the interwebs in any great detail about 3 years ago --- is concise. I, Blackjack, am a windbag -- making long, thorough and detailed posts on nuance and such in an argument doesn't help to clear things up. Instead of more clear, things become more convoluted as my counterpart looks to make a point or find contention instead of just acknowledging the thought process or opinion I'm trying to express. It becomes an argument never meant to be waged. So I'm gonna try something a little bit different: bullets.


The OP (please read) (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4598654&postcount=139): Lemmings exist, don't be one, and the mosque should be built

Blake fails tying to make humor out of irony -- it didn't exist

Blake solicits an opinion from me as to why the people I know oppose -- suggests the burden of proof lies with me to prove they're not in fact racist or Islamaphobic. He can't come up with another reason, he doesn't know "why?," therefore, they must be racist or bigoted. (The birth of Nancy and the basis for Blake's future self-ownage.

Blake deduces that one of the potential dilemmas, morality, will be the new issue, a debate on semantics that he concocted out of nowhere -- seemingly just a butthurt way of trying to pick himself up from the mat; a mat, ironically, he put himself on.

Blake takes exception to me not taking exception with the opposition I know -- can't understand how I could respect their opinion in disagreement; he implies that I am now in fact as racist and Islamaphobic as the opposition he generalized and I defended.

In the process of me defending and trying to validate the people I know in opposition not to be racists or bigots, the goal posts move once again for me to validate their argument -- LnGrrrR becomes involved here and makes this his point of contention, as he believes this is and always was the contention. (If I believed the argument was valid and not simply the sensitivities and concerns, I wouldn't be for the Park51 project.)

A whole bunch of misunderstanding, miscommunication and mischaracterization takes place, from myself and others -- I was unaware exactly where LnGrrrR was coming from and what his real contention was, LnGrrrR was arguing a point of contention I didn't have or wish to argue, Blake continued to be Nancy (disingenuous).

Now the argument has become about the best way to move forward and what's needed to do so. I believe this is a great opportunity to be a real landmark civil rights moment for the Muslim-American if they can get their message out by going above and beyond what should be necessary; LnGrrrR apparently believes they should only do what they have to do on principle.


Not quite as concise as I hoped. ... Baby steps.

Oh, And I love you too, Wino -- Manny you're wrong about my stance from the jump but, contrary to this particular thread and the amount of verbage in it, I agree on the rest.

Slow news cycles and a lacking of basketball seems to throw everyone and everything a little off whack.

[Blake]

Blake fails tying to make humor out of irony -- it didn't exist



Right in that the lemmings result to name-calling

Hypocrisy then?

I'd agree pointing it out really wasn't that funny.

Why are you so concerned with what I posted?

Just make a clear, brief concise point, here and now to clear it up.

This thread just has not been good for you. :(

[Blackjack]

Dog barks

Cats meow

Lemmings result to name-calling

Nancy asks "why?"

Irony is in Nancy questioning anyone's reading comprehension.

http://pdhomes.net/collections/notlad/ArtStuff/kerrigan.jpg

:rollin

[Blackjack]

Blackjack,

I'm a bit tired at the moment, so forgive me for eschewing the line-by-line post.

Please, by all means, it's not necessary to respond line-by-line. I only did so because it sounded as if you thought I was ignoring your past posts -- I was just trying to condense what I saw as the contentions in one post rather than responding to each one. I don't enjoy having to quote everything or write L-n-G-r-r-r-R in every quote. :lol


When it comes to whether they should have built it there in the first place, or whether that's insensitive or not, I would still argue that the only way it could be "insensitive" is if people chose to associate ALL Muslims with the act of a few terrorists. Wouldn't you agree?

Not exactly. If the person's claiming it's insensitive to them -- someone who wasn't directly affected by the events of 9-11 -- I'd agree. But if the insensitivity gleaned would be from the fact that they believe someone who was directly affected by the events of 9-11 would be against this project and it would cause them any further pain or distress for this community center to be there, than I don't think it has to do with Islamaphobia, which is basically what you alluded to -- it just doesn't matter to them what the reasoning is for the victims' family members objections, they just feel they don't deserve to suffer any more in light of what happened that day.


Now, real world, of course people are going to do that. But rationally speaking, does that make sense? Is a mosque in and of itself offensive? If not, why is a mosque so close to Ground Zero offensive?

No. In a vacuum, there shouldn't be any controversy.


Should the Imam have better PR? Probably. Would it help? Sure. I don't think that speaks to the morality/rightness of the building issue though. Neither does the "necessity" of the community center/mosque. Does the amount of Muslims in NY city that would use these facilities affect the morality behind it being there in the first place?

To the PR, it's simply a means to make sure nothing can be misconstrued. I've gotta believe if it had been done right the objections would be relegated to the haters you're never going to win over and possibly the ones just too emotionally involved and distraught with the acts of 9-11 (family and friends of victims) to separate themselves enough to believe in what we both believe to be the right thing to do.

The necessity doesn't speak to anything other than the not wanting of anyone directly affected by 9-11 to be offended or upset for whatever reason. If it was needed and the project's purpose was framed and defined better, I believe that could change some things with objectors, whether they were directly affected or not.


Regarding Dr. King... you have a different sense of the word "victory" than I do, I think. You regard "victory" as one would in chess, with one winner and one loser. I was thinking victory along the lines of goals realized, in which Dr. King's dreams were brought that much closer to fruition through his actions.

I was simply using in the context of King's Pledge of Nonviolence:


Remember the nonviolent movement seeks justice and reconciliation - not victory.

Smart dude -- our entire political discourse could stand to benefit greatly from practicing what he preached.


Finally, I don't think anyone's argued that you didn't support it. But by saying that you knew "good people" who didn't support, you in effect argue for them. It's like if you said that 2+2=4, and I said I had a good friend who could prove that 2+2=5. You would then take me to task, because by stating the beliefs of my good friend, I give validity to their beliefs. Capische? :)

I know where you're coming from and agree with the thoughts. But the only reason my "good people" got brought into the equation was to suggest they did in fact exist, something Nancy wouldn't have you believe -- being in opposition doesn't make you a bigot, even if bigotry will inevitably play a part in some of the opposition. It's just not ALL, which is how this whole thing started.


Out for the night; figured I'd keep it short and sweet. Well, relatively short anyways.

Short and sweet. I like it. Dat der is progress, tbh :tu

[Blake]

Lemmings result to name-calling

Nancy asks "why?"

:rollin

I did not ask why you call other people names such as "lemming".

reading comprehension fail again.

Everyone else around you is calling out your posts, but you think it's everyone else that has the reading comprehension problem.

Why?

[Blake]

Short and sweet. I like it. Dat der is progress, tbh :tu

Sweet irony.

You're a dumbfuck. :tu

[Blackjack]

I did not ask why you call other people names such as "lemming".

reading comprehension fail again.

Yes, you did, Nancy. Who'd I call lemmings, Nancy?


Everyone else around you is calling out your posts, but you think it's everyone else that has the reading comprehension problem.

Why?

Who would that be, Nancy?


Sweet irony.

You're a dumbfuck. :tu

Maybe it's just your butthurt nature that's convoluting the text and having you miss the jokes and the intentions of a post, eh, Nancy?

One things for sure, you mad. :lol

"dumbfuck." :rollin

[Winehole23]

^^^ like WC, always so horribly misunderstood.

[Winehole23]

And there's never any way to untangle it.

[Winehole23]

What a tragedy for the wisdom of the species to be continually deprived of such empathic and sensitive blowhards due to their own innate stupidity and tactlessness.

[Blackjack]

And there's never any way to untangle it.

Except, there is and I did:



The OP (please read) (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4598654&postcount=139): Lemmings exist, don't be one, and the mosque should be built

Blake fails tying to make humor out of irony -- it didn't exist

Blake solicits an opinion from me as to why the people I know oppose -- suggests the burden of proof lies with me to prove they're not in fact racist or Islamaphobic. He can't come up with another reason, he doesn't know "why?," therefore, they must be racist or bigoted. (The birth of Nancy and the basis for Blake's future self-ownage.

Blake deduces that one of the potential dilemmas, morality, will be the new issue, a debate on semantics that he concocted out of nowhere -- seemingly just a butthurt way of trying to pick himself up from the mat; a mat, ironically, he put himself on.

Blake takes exception to me not taking exception with the opposition I know -- can't understand how I could respect their opinion in disagreement; he implies that I am now in fact as racist and Islamaphobic as the opposition he generalized and I defended.

In the process of me defending and trying to validate the people I know in opposition not to be racists or bigots, the goal posts move once again for me to validate their argument -- LnGrrrR becomes involved here and makes this his point of contention, as he believes this is and always was the contention. (If I believed the argument was valid and not simply the sensitivities and concerns, I wouldn't be for the Park51 project.)

A whole bunch of misunderstanding, miscommunication and mischaracterization takes place, from myself and others -- I was unaware exactly where LnGrrrR was coming from and what his real contention was, LnGrrrR was arguing a point of contention I didn't have or wish to argue, Blake continued to be Nancy (disingenuous).

Now the argument has become about the best way to move forward and what's needed to do so. I believe this is a great opportunity to be a real landmark civil rights moment for the Muslim-American if they can get their message out by going above and beyond what should be necessary; LnGrrrR apparently believes they should only do what they have to do on principle.



^^^ like WC, always so horribly misunderstood.

Winston Churchill? Let's not get hasty, it was only one misunderstanding.


What a tragedy for the wisdom of the species to be continually deprived of such empathic and sensitive blowhards due to their own innate stupidity and tactlessness.

You're one pompous prick, Wino. ... And I love you for it. :lol

[Winehole23]

Winston Churchill? Let's not get hasty, it was only one misunderstanding.I meant someone much closer to your intellectual caliber: Wild Cobra.

Your attempts to untangle things only lead to worse tangles. Maybe that's why you can't avoid being such a blowhard about it.

[Blackjack]

My windbaggedness can do that at times, I'll readily admit; and have as much in this thread.

Windbags, pricks, we all have and serve a purpose.

[LnGrrrR]

Eh, I feel like I won my part of it. BJ agreed that, in a vaccuum, the opposition doesn't make rational/logical sense. And if one wishes the mosque to be moved due to the sensitivity of the 9/11 families, then it is ultimately based on the faulty logic of the 9/11 families that are offended. Good enough for me.

[Winehole23]

LOGOMACHY, n. A war in which the weapons are words and the wounds punctures in the swim-bladder of self-esteem — a kind of contest in which, the vanquished being unconscious of defeat, the victor is denied the reward of success.

'Tis said by divers of the scholar-men
That poor Salmasius died of Milton's pen.
Alas! we cannot know if this is true,
For reading Milton's wit we perish too.

[Blackjack]

Eh, I feel like I won my part of it. BJ agreed that, in a vaccuum, the opposition doesn't make rational/logical sense. And if one wishes the mosque to be moved due to the sensitivity of the 9/11 families, then it is ultimately based on the faulty logic of the 9/11 families that are offended. Good enough for me.

I've agreed with that all along. That was kinda the point: much was lost in translation, largely due to Blake's ability to convolute the argument masterfully (or, more likely, inability to comprehend) compounded with my windbaggedness to confuse those looking to weigh in further.

It was never about the mosque moving, it was about the initial purchase and decision to build where they did. Moving now would inflame things worse than any possible gains extremists could find with the center's simple presence there. Just about every person I know in opposition believes that.


:sleep

(* BURP *)


As an aside, I did just get a chance to see the whole interview with the Imam on Larry King with Soledad Brown. The only thing I found to be unbelievable was the notion that he didn't believe this would be controversial on any level. He was clearly trying to make it known to people how cognizant he was to the sensitivities of all involved but he admitted to not consulting with any of the families or anyone else along those lines prior to deciding to build. Just doesn't add up.

The takeaway I got from the interview was, this was the type of thing needed to achieve the requisite engagement to bridge the gap. Taking the medicine, so to speak. Had they just done their project away from the lights it wouldn't have sparked the conversation or moved the discourse forward quickly enough to affect the type of positive change needed --I agree if that's the case but I guess the wisdom in having people take their medicine in this venue could be open for debate.

Maybe I wrong, but it just didn't seem to add up. For him to say now that they wouldn't have gone through with the project if they'd know it would have caused any kind of distress to the victims of 9-11 or controversy with the average American, it just didn't feel right.

The Imam's an extremely intelligent guy who's no stranger to catering to the sensitivities of people, so it's just hard for me to buy he wouldn't consult with anyone before going forward with the project. Just seems to me he found the best way possible to get what's desperately needed done: engagement for the purposes of reconciliation and understanding between faiths and people.

[Blake]

That was kinda the point: much was lost in translation, largely due to Blake's ability to convolute the argument masterfully.

lol at being a master of convolutedness

I have no reason to convolute your statements. Others grasped my points clear enough. I wanted to clear up yours. Thus the simple questions, such as "what is the moral dilemma that the builders face?"


It was never about the mosque moving, it was about the initial purchase and decision to build where they did. Moving now would inflame things worse than any possible gains extremists could find with the center's simple presence there. Just about every person I know in opposition believes that.

That's a new one. :lol

[LnGrrrR]

Maybe I wrong, but it just didn't seem to add up. For him to say now that they wouldn't have gone through with the project if they'd know it would have caused any kind of distress to the victims of 9-11 or controversy with the average American, it just didn't feel right.


And yet, when he purchased the property, there was no outspoken opposition. For instance, let's look at the facts:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/17/AR2010081701473.html

Now, it does say that there's not a place for a Muslim prayer space, but it does specifically mention that it was planning to be a community center, and that it's location was to help send the message that Muslims are tolerant and willing to work with all faiths.

But then the "liberal media" gets ahold of the news...



Based on that Salon piece, the turning point came in May, when the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/panel_approves_wtc_mosque_U46MkTSVJH3ZxqmNuuKmML) ran a short story under the headline, "Panel approves 'WTC' mosque." That day Pamela Geller, who blogs at Atlas Shrugs and is the author of a book subtitled, "The Obama Administration's War on America," attacked the plan in a post (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/05/monster-mosque-pushes-ahead-in-shadow-of-world-trade-center-islamic-death-and-destruction.html) headlined, "Monster Mosque Pushes Ahead in Shadow of World Trade Center Islamic Death and Destruction." "How disgusting," she declared. Days later, Post columnist Andrea Peyser (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/mosque_madness_at_ground_zero_OQ34EB0MWS0lXuAnQau5 uL) wrote a piece titled, "Mosque madness at Ground Zero."


So, from December when the article was published, to May, there was no great groundswell. If opposition should've been predicted, why wasn't there a big outcry from Day One?

[Blackjack]

lol at being a master of convolutedness

Much like the post that started this, there was an "or" involved in the sentence that you conveniently left out. lol


I have no reason to convolute your statements. Others grasped my points clear enough. I wanted to clear up yours. Thus the simple questions, such as "what is the moral dilemma that the builders face?"

Yes, they did. They grasped your points. The problem was, you tried to frame the points you were making as mine. You had no idea what my point was or weren't looking to go along with what I said because of your irony fail and the thinking that I had called you and your brethren lemmings.

See, like: "what is the moral dilemma that the builders face?"

lol thinking that was ever something I stated or a point of contention. ... But statements like that found a way to gain traction and suggest that it had some kind of relevance to my posts -- you asked me why some of the opposition I knew opposed, brah.


And yet, when he purchased the property, there was no outspoken opposition. For instance, let's look at the facts:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/17/AR2010081701473.html

I'm perfectly aware of that. It doesn't change the fact that just about anyone would have believed there would have been some kind of opposition or sensitivity the project would have to deal with at some point. Just because the story hadn't become what it is now a year ago doesn't mean it would have remained that way as the project's construction neared.

And listening to the man speak for an hour, it seemed quite clear that he wanted people to know how empathetic he was to the feelings of all involved. But he also made it known he didn't speak to any family members prior to deciding to purchase and develop the property, which doesn't jive with the sensitivity he was professing.

The one thing that stood out to me more than his wish to let people know how sensitive he was to the feelings of those at unease or in opposition, was his urging for the discourse to change and for his (their) need to "engage."

I can't know for sure (obviously) if that was the real intention of choosing the location, but it makes sense; and it could even be the right thing to do (definitely in a vacuum).

Going this route would definitely bring more people to the table from the jump and could help to advance the cause of the Muslim-American once the message takes hold and some of the good they're hoping to do takes place and can actually be seen coming to fruition.

Like I said, there really wasn't anything I found to be out of line or underhanded in his interview. I agreed with most he said. But him saying they wouldn't have gone through with the project had he known there would have been any controversy or unease and then stating there was never any outreach to get a feel of how the victims' families might feel about it?

That just doesn't add up to me.

[LnGrrrR]

It doesn't change the fact that just about anyone would have believed there would have been some kind of opposition or sensitivity the project would have to deal with at some point. Just because the story hadn't become what it is now a year ago doesn't mean it would have remained that way as the project's construction neared.



But this is your opinion, based off your own view on the project. I don't think there would have been a great deal of furor if it wasn't spun as some huge F-U to the 9/11 community. After all, you'd think that stripper clubs near 9/11 would be as offensive, but until this came about, I hadn't realized that there were some near Ground Zero.

He probably just had a blind spot. After all, you admitted that it doesn't make logical sense for people to conflate Muslims with terrorists. Maybe he forgot how illogical people can be.

[Blackjack]

But this is your opinion, based off your own view on the project. I don't think there would have been a great deal of furor if it wasn't spun as some huge F-U to the 9/11 community. After all, you'd think that stripper clubs near 9/11 would be as offensive, but until this came about, I hadn't realized that there were some near Ground Zero.

Absolutely. I'm not sure it ever becomes close to the story it is now without a couple of bomb throwers looking to create a story or make an issue of the thing, but this definitely seemed an issue that was doused in gasoline -- seemingly just needing a stray spark to ignite.

When you see numbers like 70% of the American public believe it to be a bad idea (even if in the right legally) and you're trying to bridge gaps with as much sensitivity as possible, it just seems a pretty logical assumption that you'd have some kind of outreach to the families or make some kind of effort to find out how the project would be received. They may not have been aware of the number 70% but that's the type of number I'm guessing you don't need to see, you feel; especially as a Muslim-American who has to deal with that on a daily basis.


He probably just had a blind spot. After all, you admitted that it doesn't make logical sense for people to conflate Muslims with terrorists. Maybe he forgot how illogical people can be.

:lol

[Winehole23]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/evict_threat_for_mosque_lIbVwVeDv8FaBnnPEyuLmN

[LnGrrrR]

Why, dear God why would you bump this WH? :lol

[Winehole23]

it was by far the MOST tedious GZM related thread I could find

[DarrinS]

Why, dear God why would you bump this WH? :lol


That's how he rolls.

[Winehole23]

And that's how you roll.