Reply With Quote
he could use one good day.
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.
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!
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.
Still me, but I'm in "debate" mode. Remember, I'm only calling your arguments dumb, not you.I'm beginning to realize the LnGrrrR I enjoyed outside of the Politics forum doesn't exist 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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Are you aware of the actual scale? Tell me, what "pomp and cir stance" 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.
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.
Are you telling me you can't see the pros of a community center focused on building alliances between people of different faiths?
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.
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.
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.
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?"
Anyways, as I said up-thread, you are arguing on behalf of your "good people". YOUR stance is somewhat irrelevant. (No offense.)
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.
So you'll take this back to those "good people" and try to change their mind?
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?
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?
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.
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.
DarrinS: Knower of all Muslims in NY city.
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."
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 cir stance. 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 on.
In the words of a very wise poster here: "The country's going bankrupt."
lol Nancy trying to spin owning himself.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?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."
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 cir stance. 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 on.
In the words of a very wise poster here: "The country's going bankrupt."
In other words, your initial position was to assume these Muslims were extremists.
That is a fairly telling post.
Not at all.lol Nancy trying to spin owning himself.
You directly stated this:
The amount of horsewhipping you continue to willingly take in this thread is astounding.
, 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.
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:
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 cir stance 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 son 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
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.
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.
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.It was just a flippant kind of "maybe there'd be an exception to the rule" kinda thing.
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.
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).
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.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.
But I personally agree with the sentiment of that text.
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.
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).
That's where the disconnect is. That's simply not the case -- hopefully what I just posted clears that up.
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).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?"
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.
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.Because Republicans are better at message control than Democrats? You got me.
I supported it from the jump. I was perfectly comfortable with my position.
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.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.
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.So you'll take this back to those "good people" and try to change their mind?
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!?!
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).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.
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.
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.
Momma never told you two wrongs don't make a right?
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 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).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.
No. I love them types of questions.
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.
And I don't know why you keep on bringing up the rationale to move.
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).
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.
No. THEY. SHOULD. NOT. MOVE. THE. MOSQUE, tbh.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.
What they should do is put a full-court press on through the media, find a way to Americanize this son 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."
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."
Late to the game, bro. But hopefully the last response to LnGrrrR addresses that.
Those definitely are other words.
Apparently not.
A lot of words in this thread
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.
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.
One of the miracles of Spurstalk is that DarrinS never has a good day. He just about always ends up kicking his own ass.
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-11-2010 at 06:46 AM. Reason: faulty article
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.
DarrinS's posts are gratifyingly brief, I'll give him that.
I thought my posts in a topic about God in The Club were long, but goddamn.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.
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?
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): 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.
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.
Dog barks
Cats meow
Lemmings result to name-calling
Nancy asks "why?"
Irony is in Nancy questioning anyone's reading comprehension.
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.
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.
No. In a vacuum, there shouldn't be any controversy.
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.
I was simply using in the context of King's Pledge of Nonviolence: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.
Smart dude -- our entire political discourse could stand to benefit greatly from practicing what he preached.Remember the nonviolent movement seeks justice and reconciliation - not victory.
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.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?
Short and sweet. I like it. Dat der is progress, tbh
I did not ask why you call other people names such as "lemming".Lemmings result to name-calling
Nancy asks "why?"
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
