The last refuge of a liberal

[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 in' 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 cir stance?

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 ing 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 in' 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 cir stance? (And this particular cir stance 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 ing 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 cir stance. 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 cir stance.

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 -faced cocaine/opium-addled hobo off the street who happened to have a 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 en led 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 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 '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 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 '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... bull , 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? Have at it, hoss.

You did the same 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 ez." 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... bull , 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? 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 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 ez." Bush-league, man.

Hairston, really?

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 son 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. )

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 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. )

[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, dip .

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 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. )

I read all that.

I didn't see anything different or new. Same 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, dip .

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.

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. 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.

If you can't give a definitive answer then what the 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.

nobody is claiming ALL.

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

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!

My comprehension fail?

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!!!

Reading comprehension smack.

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 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.

Nancy the man.

[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?

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.

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

No, Nancy, I said good people have arguments not based in racism, Islamaphopbia or whatever your ignorant condescending ass comes up with. 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.

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.

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.



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!

My comprehension fail?

Yes

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

Reading comprehension smack.

truth

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.

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

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

Nancy the man.

the pussy

[Blackjack]

That might be the best ing meltdown and spin job in the history of ever. in classic.

in 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.

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

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

Keep pwning me, brah.

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

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.

Let me have it, Nancy!

[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.

Let me have it, Nancy!