Grönd zero musque ox

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

paulisa
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:02 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby paulisa » Sun Aug 22, 2010 8:02 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Seeing the distinction now? There's a difference between 'NO ONE shall build on this hallowed ground' and 'ONLY PEOPLE I APPROVE OF will build on this hallowed ground'.


Wouldn't it be the opposite of hallowed ground? Because people were willfully, ignorantly, and unjustifyably murdered there?

I don't think it's legitimate to draw the parallel between other mosque-projects that were stopped and this one, because of the symbolism of ground zero. In other places, it might be possibly to convice the opposers that the poeple wanting to build the mosque are their neighbours and co-workers, "normal people, just like us". So it would be just as illogical to protest against their mosque as it would be to protest against a babtist or methodist church.

That's probably why (stated earlier in this thread, no own sources) over 50% of people from Manhattan are for the mosque/community center or just don't care enough to be against it. Because they know the people wanting it, or know people who know them. But people from outside can easily say "the people who want a mosque near *our* sacred place are Big Bad Muslim Terrorists(TM)" because they don't know better.
The smallest unit of time in the multiverse is the New-York-Second, defined as the period of time passing between the traffic light turning green and the cab behind you honking. - Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Aug 22, 2010 8:09 am UTC

paulisa wrote:Wouldn't it be the opposite of hallowed ground? Because people were willfully, ignorantly, and unjustifyably murdered there?
Hallowed ground is hallowed ground not by the nature of the ground itself, but by a decision made by a bunch of people who wish to define it as hallowed ground. Point taken, however--my terminology was in poor taste.

My point is only that the immediate area around Auschwitz is not (as far as I'm aware) zoned for development1; a better parallel would be if someone opposed the construction of a Christian church within the nearest community.


1Actually, I might have to check on this. I'm actually fairly certain I remember at least one of the camps being built within or directly besides a fairly large community; in which case, I think this point still holds--would you claim that no one is therefore allowed to build a Christian church within that community because of its proximity to the camp?

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Hawknc » Sun Aug 22, 2010 8:18 am UTC

paulisa wrote:In other places, it might be possibly to convice the opposers that the poeple wanting to build the mosque are their neighbours and co-workers, "normal people, just like us". So it would be just as illogical to protest against their mosque as it would be to protest against a babtist or methodist church.

So...if the people who want to use this mosque show their drivers licenses as proof that they live nearby, would that assuage you? What makes a Muslim not a normal person?

paulisa
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:02 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby paulisa » Sun Aug 22, 2010 9:11 am UTC

Hawknc wrote:So...if the people who want to use this mosque show their drivers licenses as proof that they live nearby, would that assuage you? What makes a Muslim not a normal person?


You missunderstand me. I'm not american, I don't oppose the community center, I couldn't care less about mosques in my area, I don't care what people want to do to express their religion but I'm firmly in favour of allowing them to. I just think that most people who oppose the community center either see it as an "us vs. them"-debate, and allowing "them muslim terrorists" to build it would be a "defeat" for america, and aren't even directly affected because they live all over the country. These people have to see that most "american muslims" are american first, just like most "american methodists" are american first. From the outside, I want to respect the USA for being a free country, not for being a christian country.

Human beings are very prone to xenophobia; possibly that used to be an advantage sometime. The only way to overcome this is education and exposure. I know enough redheads to know that they're not witches and hair colour has nothing to do with attitude. I know enough moronic/great people of all religions to know that none is better than the other, and we shouldn't supress one because it's new in an area.
The smallest unit of time in the multiverse is the New-York-Second, defined as the period of time passing between the traffic light turning green and the cab behind you honking. - Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies

guenther
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby guenther » Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:15 pm UTC

Is anyone on the opposition actually mounting a legal effort to challenge the group's right to build the community center? Or are people simply airing their disapproval?
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Diadem » Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:26 pm UTC

Malice wrote:
Diadem wrote:So how do you guys feel about building a christian monestary right next to Auschwitz?


About the same as I feel about building a cheese factory next to an airport.

Oh, hey, look. I can make non-sequitors too!

Except it's a historical example:

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/15/world ... hwitz.html

This seems to be nearly the same thing. The relationship between 9/11 and Muslims is perhaps stronger than the one between Christianity and the Holocaust, but that's hardly an argument in favour of this community centre.

In my opinion (and it seems Pope John Paul II agreed with me) it doesn't really matter if their sensibilities are sensible or not. If you want to improve your relationship with the other group, and improve understanding of eachother, it's simply better to avoid needless provocation and be the bigger man. There are of course instances in which you should not stand aside for intolerance - when it violates your own freedom or principles - but this is not one of those cases. This is one of those cases where you should turn the other cheek.

People in this thread keep talking about rights. But it has nothing to do with that. Of course they have the right to build that community centre wherever they want. Noone (excpet a few insane idiots who haven't read the constitution) is arguing against that. I'll go further and say that they *should* have the right to do that (ie: I think that the constitution is right in this case). But that doesn't mean it is a good idea.

The Great Hippo wrote:
Diadem wrote:So how do you guys feel about building a christian monestary right next to Auschwitz?
It depends--is the area around Auschwitz zoned for development?

Is the area around the collapsed WTC towers zoned for development?

Seeing the distinction now? There's a difference between 'NO ONE shall build on this hallowed ground' and 'ONLY PEOPLE I APPROVE OF will build on this hallowed ground'.

That would have been a good point if that had been how it went. But the Jewish groups that protested against this monastery didn't have a problem with any group being there. They had a problem with that particular group being there. And the nuns where there for 6 years before they moved, so, yeah, it wasn't about building something.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Vaniver » Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:59 pm UTC

Kizyr wrote:They changed the name from Cordoba House to Park 51 because some people were insensitive to it. Any amount of "changes" they make won't appease the people who are saying that our very presence is somehow offensive.
To be fair, if anything about the plan was questionable, it was the name.

Diadem wrote:This seems to be nearly the same thing. The relationship between 9/11 and Muslims is perhaps stronger than the one between Christianity and the Holocaust, but that's hardly an argument in favour of this community centre.
Notice that the nuns were using an actual part of Auschwitz (at least, a storage facility used by the death camp). The analog here would be building a mosque on part of Ground Zero itself, rather than next to it- and while I'm fine with a mosque next to Ground Zero, I cannot imagine a way I'm happy with where a mosque ends up inside Ground Zero. (That is, a building that is entirely a mosque. If a mosque leases office space in whatever is built there by the Port Authority, that's fine, but the only plausible way I can see the land going up for auction and people who want to build a mosque there winning the auction is mean-spiritedness or foul play.)

I do agree, though, that the situations are more similar than dissimilar. I don't think they're so similar that you can't have opposite recommendations for each, though.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Steroid » Sun Aug 22, 2010 4:46 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Steroid wrote:That's the second time you've put in single quotes something I did not say. Are you using quotes in some way I am not familiar with? In any case, you have incorrectly summarized my position. I am specifically saying to not teach Muslims any lesson, but to act in our own interests, which will have the salutary side effect of making the situation plain to Muslims, who then have the free choice to either recognize it and act accordingly, or ignore it and suffer for it. I believe that this position would be the most efficient in improving the lives, and avoiding the deaths, of people over the long term. Though, I fully concede that it may endanger more lives in the short-term than would a position specifically geared toward the end of saving "the actual lives of Americans and Muslims throughout the world."
This is not an approach that historically has done anything but sow contempt and lead to violence. It may be a cliche, but for a good reason: Education and dialogue are the proper tools, not anger, rhetoric, and exclusion.


Really? To me, when anyone from another country tries to educate me on how my country ought to be run, I tell them to butt out, and I think of them as arrogant and self-righteous. When, on the other hand, they show me, through rhetoric and exclusion, how their methods achieve their ends, I either agree with the ends and adopt the methods, or disagree with the ends and say live and let live.

Steroid wrote:Are you again being sarcastic? I will assume no. So I'll try it again, in question form this time, to see if I can make the point: why should I offer fair and reasonable debate with someone who cuts short argument by merely saying that I am an idiot, or that my position is idiotic? Why should I not simply return the slight in kind? If I must construct a rational argument while the person who disagrees with me gets to simply use a term of opprobrium, how is that equitable? It can hardly be said to be fair that I do more intellectual spadework than my opponent, yet have my position cut down on an insult.
I actually think my point is fairly elegant. You were justifying bigotry, and my response was to point out that at least you feel justified. Because that really is what's important, right? The fact that you can't parse this as anything but a direct insult doesn't sound like my problem (hey, this approach of yours is kinda therapeutic!).


But you didn't say (the first time) that what was important was that I felt justified in being bigoted. You said that it was important that I felt justified in being an idiot. I am not an idiot, the implication was that I was, therefore I took it as an insult. But yes, it is important that I not have to construct a rational argument against an evil person like a radical Muslim terrorist. He, being evil, should have no advantage over me, being good. If I decline to give him such an advantage, I do feel justified.

This is not a zero sum game between Islam and America. The winner does not get to go home and have noisy, loud sex with the Prom Queen.

Thinking on it, this is probably your primary problem--that you can't think of this outside of 'Islam: 1, America: 0'.

Basically I'm saying you need to cut down on the Sportsball.


Ah, but it is a zero-sum game between Islam and me. If the mosque is completed, I will be unhappy. If it is moved, altered, or cancelled, I will be happy. To reverse Ghandi, I like your Muslims, I do not like your Islam. I do not like its precepts, its principles, its practices, or its pillars. I would have people abandon the ideas and adopt others. I want it discredited and its proponents forced by circumstance to choose between the tenets of Islam and my approval. I, as a radical fundamentalist libertarian, do not act against any person or group who is merely doing what they want. But I do think against them and speak against them when their ideas conflict with mine.

Hawknc wrote:
Steroid wrote:More important is the idea that completion of the project would be an advance of Islam and a retreat of America, and moving the project elsewhere would be the inverse.

Why? I've honestly never seen a coherent argument that a mosque, even smack in the middle of Freedom Tower, would be a retreat of America, so I'd love for you to provide one.


To do so I must draw distinction between America the country, America the government, and America the idea. Islam has no country and no government, so its ideas are undisturbed by the movements of countries and governments. The idea of America, to my view, comprises the idea that religion ought to be a private thing and that religious clashes ought to be avoided. To codify that idea in law, America the government has crafted the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. To put that idea forth in practice, America the country has, for the most part, kept religion out of the interactions of people. When you deal with a Jew or a Hindu or a Christian in the course of secular activity, his religion does not come into play (again, for the most part). So no, the mosque, even in the Freedom Tower, does not force into retreat America the government or America the country, but it does advance against America the idea. It is making a spectacle of the religion. It is causing a clash instead of avoiding one. It is causing Americans, such as myself, who would otherwise be quite content to ignore Islam, to take cognizance of it, and that is a retreat.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:05 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:Ah, but it is a zero-sum game between Islam and me. If the mosque is completed, I will be unhappy.

Image

Steroid wrote:But I do think against them and speak against them when their ideas conflict with mine.

So do you actually care that the building is near-ish to Ground Zero, or are you just going to complain that Islam is doing things in general?

Steroid wrote:The idea of America, to my view, comprises the idea that religion ought to be a private thing and that religious clashes ought to be avoided.

Does this "idea" have anything to do with America in reality, or are you just trying to wrap your personal beliefs in a flag? Clearly, there are a fucktillion Americans who do not think that religion should be kept private.

Steroid wrote:To codify that idea in law, America the government has crafted the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. To put that idea forth in practice, America the country has, for the most part, kept religion out of the interactions of people.

Lol wut. The Free Exercise Clause is pretty clearly supportive of public expression of religion, and "America the country" in practice has been pretty fucking publicly religious.

So am I correct in understanding that you just personally don't think there should be mosques, and that you mistakenly believe this view to be one of the founding principles of the country?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Malice » Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:06 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:
This is not a zero sum game between Islam and America. The winner does not get to go home and have noisy, loud sex with the Prom Queen.

Thinking on it, this is probably your primary problem--that you can't think of this outside of 'Islam: 1, America: 0'.

Basically I'm saying you need to cut down on the Sportsball.


Ah, but it is a zero-sum game between Islam and me. If the mosque is completed, I will be unhappy. If it is moved, altered, or cancelled, I will be happy. To reverse Ghandi, I like your Muslims, I do not like your Islam. I do not like its precepts, its principles, its practices, or its pillars. I would have people abandon the ideas and adopt others. I want it discredited and its proponents forced by circumstance to choose between the tenets of Islam and my approval. I, as a radical fundamentalist libertarian, do not act against any person or group who is merely doing what they want. But I do think against them and speak against them when their ideas conflict with mine.


You do recognize this makes you a dickweed, right? A tumbling, tumbling dickweed. Just checking.

So no, the mosque, even in the Freedom Tower, does not force into retreat America the government or America the country, but it does advance against America the idea. It is making a spectacle of the religion. It is causing a clash instead of avoiding one. It is causing Americans, such as myself, who would otherwise be quite content to ignore Islam, to take cognizance of it, and that is a retreat.


But it seems that any mosque does that, these days. What you're advocating then becomes "nobody should build any buildings for worshipping anything, no matter what their religion."
Image

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Vaniver » Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:07 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:It is causing Americans, such as myself, who would otherwise be quite content to ignore Islam, to take cognizance of it, and that is a retreat.
I do not think this stands up under closer inspection. The benefit of diversity and freedom is not that everyone blandly appears the same, and if someone deviates from the standard appearance that does not mean they have caused freedom to retreat.

Indeed, a core component of America the Idea is that private ideas can have public expression. Even the worst dictator has not succeeded in making thoughts a crime- but they have made the expression of wrong thoughts a crime. America the Idea says that even the wrongest thoughts may be expressed without running afoul of the law.* Thus, to make public expression of one's Muslim thoughts unacceptable, even while readily admitting that it's alright for people to be Muslims where we can't see them, betrays America the Idea. American freedom is in expression, because freedom in thought is a given.

*America the Actuality, of course, makes exceptions.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby PeterCai » Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:07 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:To do so I must draw distinction between America the country, America the government, and America the idea. Islam has no country and no government, so its ideas are undisturbed by the movements of countries and governments. The idea of America, to my view, comprises the idea that religion ought to be a private thing and that religious clashes ought to be avoided. To codify that idea in law, America the government has crafted the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. To put that idea forth in practice, America the country has, for the most part, kept religion out of the interactions of people. When you deal with a Jew or a Hindu or a Christian in the course of secular activity, his religion does not come into play (again, for the most part). So no, the mosque, even in the Freedom Tower, does not force into retreat America the government or America the country, but it does advance against America the idea. It is making a spectacle of the religion. It is causing a clash instead of avoiding one. It is causing Americans, such as myself, who would otherwise be quite content to ignore Islam, to take cognizance of it, and that is a retreat.


not quite, america the idea evolved to include the belief of christianity, the public display of belief(politic), and communities built on the basis of belief(church). in reality, america the country is not only loud, but often obnoxious in its display of belief, as it is common and morally acceptable to impose it on other people(evangelism, exclusion and exile of nonbeliever from communites), and even other countries(gag rule). indeed, the building of the mosque does advance against america the idea, but in the context that a perceived foreign belief advance against a perceived native, overwhelmingly majority belief.

User avatar
jakovasaur
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:43 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby jakovasaur » Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:26 pm UTC

Just ignore that guy. He's either intentionally trolling or unable to understand what we are talking about. I think that dealing with whatever he's saying is counterproductive.

Texas_Ben
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:34 am UTC
Location: Not in Texas

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Texas_Ben » Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:44 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:That would have been a good point if that had been how it went. But the Jewish groups that protested against this monastery didn't have a problem with any group being there. They had a problem with that particular group being there. And the nuns where there for 6 years before they moved, so, yeah, it wasn't about building something.

Actually what they had a problem with was the fact that the building they used was a storehouse for the gas that fed the gas chambers.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Steroid » Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:54 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Steroid wrote:But I do think against them and speak against them when their ideas conflict with mine.

So do you actually care that the building is near-ish to Ground Zero, or are you just going to complain that Islam is doing things in general?

Put it this way: if they didn't do the things that cause the conflict, I'd care less about the location of the building. I mean, there's no one that I really agree with 100%, but there are some idea and actions that I detest more than others.

Does this "idea" have anything to do with America in reality, or are you just trying to wrap your personal beliefs in a flag? Clearly, there are a fucktillion Americans who do not think that religion should be kept private.


Perhaps I phrased that poorly; I mean private as in not specifically interfering with another. A Christian who wears a gold cross or a Jew in a yarmulke or Muslim taking time out to pray is still keeping his religion private. The people who protest at abortion clinics and gay partnership ceremonies are making their religion public. The billboards you linked are similar. I'm not saying that those protests or those billboards should be stopped by government. I am saying that they are uncouth and counterproductive to a harmonious society, and that just because they're allowed in law, it doesn't mean that we must countenance them in social convention.

And I'm saying the ground zero mosque falls into the same category. I don't think they're building it simply to practice their religion; I think they're doing it to provoke. Certainly they have provoked. But perhaps I'm wrong; they may be acting in good faith (no pun intended), and really did not anticipate the reaction the project would have caused. And perhaps they see no reason to alter their plans because the reaction is unjustified, seeing as how they are acting in good faith. In that case, equal benefit of the doubt must be given to every Christian student wants to recite a prayer at his graduation ceremony, and to every Jew who wants to support Israel against Palestine, and to every atheist who publishes a book on how stupid religion is.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:46 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:Put it this way: if they didn't do the things that cause the conflict, I'd care less about the location of the building.

What does the location of the building have to do with whether some (other) Muslims are causing conflict?

Steroid wrote:The people who protest at abortion clinics and gay partnership ceremonies are making their religion public. The billboards you linked are similar. I'm not saying that those protests or those billboards should be stopped by government. I am saying that they are uncouth and counterproductive to a harmonious society, and that just because they're allowed in law, it doesn't mean that we must countenance them in social convention.

And I'm saying the ground zero mosque falls into the same category. I don't think they're building it simply to practice their religion; I think they're doing it to provoke.

Why?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
mythago
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:27 pm UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby mythago » Sun Aug 22, 2010 7:16 pm UTC

guenther wrote:Is anyone on the opposition actually mounting a legal effort to challenge the group's right to build the community center? Or are people simply airing their disapproval?


Yes. There was an attempt to have the building designated a "historic landmark", which in the US imposes all kinds of restrictions on design, use, contruction, etd., because the building was - like about a hundred other buildings - hit by some falling debris from the Towers.
three lines of plaintext
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Steroid » Sun Aug 22, 2010 7:40 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
And I'm saying the ground zero mosque falls into the same category. I don't think they're building it simply to practice their religion; I think they're doing it to provoke.

Why?

Firstly because it did provoke. Secondly because I think that Muslims would understand the nature of sacred ground and its surroundings, and of what would be considered to profane such grounds, and would see how that would apply to Americans as regards the area they plan to build on, particularly to that stripe of Americans who think of things in terms of sanctity and profanity. But mostly because if the builders truly were caught unawares by the reaction (a definite possibility; one never knows when the media will bury a story like this), they would have changed tack when it occurred, instead of acting as if no one is complaining.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sun Aug 22, 2010 7:54 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:Firstly because it did provoke.

If Muslims build a mosque anywhere in America, it will provoke people. That hardly means that Muslims build mosques because they're provocative.

Steroid wrote:Secondly because I think that Muslims would understand the nature of sacred ground and its surroundings, and of what would be considered to profane such grounds, and would see how that would apply to Americans as regards the area they plan to build on, particularly to that stripe of Americans who think of things in terms of sanctity and profanity.

Well, again, Muslims realize that they'll piss people off no matter where they did, so "They knew some people would get pissed" is hardly an indicator that they did it because people would get pissed.

Steroid wrote:But mostly because if the builders truly were caught unawares by the reaction (a definite possibility; one never knows when the media will bury a story like this), they would have changed tack when it occurred, instead of acting as if no one is complaining.

Hmm? Their news pages suggest that they're well aware of the controversy. This is only "acting as if no one is complaining" if the only valid response to complaints is to change their plans, and that's as ridiculous in this situation as in every other situation where people try to build a mosque in America.

They don't feel obligated to move just because people are upset. There's a difference between doing something and not caring that people are pissed, and doing it because people are pissed.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Steroid » Sun Aug 22, 2010 8:23 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:They don't feel obligated to move just because people are upset. There's a difference between doing something and not caring that people are pissed, and doing it because people are pissed.


A difference to the pisser, but not to the pissee. But as I said, it's possible I'm wrong. In that case, all I'm asking for in return is equal tolerance and acceptance for any Christian, Jew, or Atheist who does something that pisses off Muslims. I don't want to hear sympathy for those who don't want infidels on their holy land; or for those who decry depictions of their prophet, or for anyone complaining about extra searches at the airport. Because those things aren't done specifically to piss off the Muslims, just because we don't care.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby bentheimmigrant » Sun Aug 22, 2010 8:24 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:Put it this way: if they didn't do the things that cause the conflict...


Methinks this is all we need to know about the source of your opinion.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Malice » Sun Aug 22, 2010 8:36 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:They don't feel obligated to move just because people are upset. There's a difference between doing something and not caring that people are pissed, and doing it because people are pissed.


A difference to the pisser, but not to the pissee. But as I said, it's possible I'm wrong. In that case, all I'm asking for in return is equal tolerance and acceptance for any Christian, Jew, or Atheist who does something that pisses off Muslims.


An excellent idea. We should all be more tolerant and accepting of each other.

I don't want to hear sympathy for those who don't want infidels on their holy land; or for those who decry depictions of their prophet, or for anyone complaining about extra searches at the airport. Because those things aren't done specifically to piss off the Muslims, just because we don't care.


The reason racial profiling is wrong has nothing to do with it being done specifically to anger Muslims, because you're right, that's not why it happens. That doesn't make it right, however.

Anyway, you do understand that "Muslims" is not the name of a monolithic entity that thinks and acts with one mind, right? And that that term actually covers a large and diverse group of people? I doubt the same people building this 'mosque' are the ones yelling about infidels.
Image

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sun Aug 22, 2010 8:37 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:A difference to the pisser, but not to the pissee.

Of course. But you were the one talking about intent.

Steroid wrote:I don't want to hear sympathy for those who don't want infidels on their holy land; or for those who decry depictions of their prophet, or for anyone complaining about extra searches at the airport. Because those things aren't done specifically to piss off the Muslims, just because we don't care.

Racial profiling infringes on Muslims' right to equality under the law. It's not a problem because it's done to piss off Muslims; it's a problem it violates Muslims' rights. Park51, though? What right does that violate?

Blah blah blah ninja'd.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Dangermouse
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:32 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Dangermouse » Sun Aug 22, 2010 8:54 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
Steroid wrote:That's the second time you've put in single quotes something I did not say. Are you using quotes in some way I am not familiar with? In any case, you have incorrectly summarized my position. I am specifically saying to not teach Muslims any lesson, but to act in our own interests, which will have the salutary side effect of making the situation plain to Muslims, who then have the free choice to either recognize it and act accordingly, or ignore it and suffer for it. I believe that this position would be the most efficient in improving the lives, and avoiding the deaths, of people over the long term. Though, I fully concede that it may endanger more lives in the short-term than would a position specifically geared toward the end of saving "the actual lives of Americans and Muslims throughout the world."
This is not an approach that historically has done anything but sow contempt and lead to violence. It may be a cliche, but for a good reason: Education and dialogue are the proper tools, not anger, rhetoric, and exclusion.


Really? To me, when anyone from another country tries to educate me on how my country ought to be run, I tell them to butt out, and I think of them as arrogant and self-righteous. When, on the other hand, they show me, through rhetoric and exclusion, how their methods achieve their ends, I either agree with the ends and adopt the methods, or disagree with the ends and say live and let live.

Steroid wrote:Are you again being sarcastic? I will assume no. So I'll try it again, in question form this time, to see if I can make the point: why should I offer fair and reasonable debate with someone who cuts short argument by merely saying that I am an idiot, or that my position is idiotic? Why should I not simply return the slight in kind? If I must construct a rational argument while the person who disagrees with me gets to simply use a term of opprobrium, how is that equitable? It can hardly be said to be fair that I do more intellectual spadework than my opponent, yet have my position cut down on an insult.
I actually think my point is fairly elegant. You were justifying bigotry, and my response was to point out that at least you feel justified. Because that really is what's important, right? The fact that you can't parse this as anything but a direct insult doesn't sound like my problem (hey, this approach of yours is kinda therapeutic!).


But you didn't say (the first time) that what was important was that I felt justified in being bigoted. You said that it was important that I felt justified in being an idiot. I am not an idiot, the implication was that I was, therefore I took it as an insult. But yes, it is important that I not have to construct a rational argument against an evil person like a radical Muslim terrorist. He, being evil, should have no advantage over me, being good. If I decline to give him such an advantage, I do feel justified.

This is not a zero sum game between Islam and America. The winner does not get to go home and have noisy, loud sex with the Prom Queen.

Thinking on it, this is probably your primary problem--that you can't think of this outside of 'Islam: 1, America: 0'.

Basically I'm saying you need to cut down on the Sportsball.


Ah, but it is a zero-sum game between Islam and me. If the mosque is completed, I will be unhappy. If it is moved, altered, or cancelled, I will be happy. To reverse Ghandi, I like your Muslims, I do not like your Islam. I do not like its precepts, its principles, its practices, or its pillars. I would have people abandon the ideas and adopt others. I want it discredited and its proponents forced by circumstance to choose between the tenets of Islam and my approval. I, as a radical fundamentalist libertarian, do not act against any person or group who is merely doing what they want. But I do think against them and speak against them when their ideas conflict with mine.

Hawknc wrote:
Steroid wrote:More important is the idea that completion of the project would be an advance of Islam and a retreat of America, and moving the project elsewhere would be the inverse.

Why? I've honestly never seen a coherent argument that a mosque, even smack in the middle of Freedom Tower, would be a retreat of America, so I'd love for you to provide one.


To do so I must draw distinction between America the country, America the government, and America the idea. Islam has no country and no government, so its ideas are undisturbed by the movements of countries and governments. The idea of America, to my view, comprises the idea that religion ought to be a private thing and that religious clashes ought to be avoided. To codify that idea in law, America the government has crafted the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. To put that idea forth in practice, America the country has, for the most part, kept religion out of the interactions of people. When you deal with a Jew or a Hindu or a Christian in the course of secular activity, his religion does not come into play (again, for the most part). So no, the mosque, even in the Freedom Tower, does not force into retreat America the government or America the country, but it does advance against America the idea. It is making a spectacle of the religion. It is causing a clash instead of avoiding one. It is causing Americans, such as myself, who would otherwise be quite content to ignore Islam, to take cognizance of it, and that is a retreat.



First of all, clothing non sequitur arguments in poorly constructed political rationalizations of 'radical libertarianism'--whatever the fuck that nonsense means--is a pretty poor ruse. All you're saying is "I get to do what I want", you just whitewash it with fancy words that you clearly don't understand.

We live in a society. Individual rights are defined in a social context. There is a constitutional right for the mosque to be built and what you think about muslims or islam has bupkis to do with it.

Oh yeah, you obviously haven't bothered to give even the most cursory of glances to the US Constitution or constitutional law, because the constitution enumerates rights that protect you against the government. Congress is not establishing a religion here, and private individuals do have the right to walk around in "I <3 Jesus" shirts. The founders never intended for religion to be removed from the interactions of people, and to suggest so is at best ignorance and at worst, insanity.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Steroid » Sun Aug 22, 2010 9:09 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Racial profiling infringes on Muslims' right to equality under the law. It's not a problem because it's done to piss off Muslims; it's a problem it violates Muslims' rights. Park51, though? What right does that violate?

Blah blah blah ninja'd.

Let me try this again: The ground zero mosque has nothing to do with rights, government, or law. Their property rights are inviolate. They have the right to build a slaughterhouse there, for all I care.

As to the airport thing, I don't think that should be a matter of law, but that's another issue. So let me revise: when they complain that other passengers at the airport point and whisper at them, they can't complain. And if you agree with me on the other points, I'd like equal emphasis on that as on the point you disagree with me on, OK? This is what I meant when I said way back in my first post in the thread: "I'm sick of people who on the one side say we need cultural sensitivity and tolerance, and on the other never give any of my cultures any of it." I want to hear either, "I can see how the things Muslims do piss you off, and I care," or, "I can see how the things you do piss off Muslims, and I don't care." I haven't heard that, so why shouldn't I conclude that I'm not considered equal to a Muslim?

Dangermouse wrote:First of all, clothing non sequitur arguments in poorly constructed political rationalizations of 'radical libertarianism'--whatever the fuck that nonsense means--is a pretty poor ruse. All you're saying is "I get to do what I want", you just whitewash it with fancy words that you clearly don't understand.

We live in a society. Individual rights are defined in a social context.


That's right, I get to do what I want. I don't give a fuck about society, you, or anybody else save as it benefits me. The "social context" crap is the smokescreen, designed to get me and everyone else to give up their most sacred individual right, the right of self-interest. The same way you pretend that I don't understand as a means to try to get me to knuckle under, admit an ignorance I do not possess, and concede that I owe something to society, with you as its avatar. I don't. I have rights and they are inviolate, sacred, holy, and more important than any societal benefit. And I will be damned to hell before I say otherwise. If you actually want to debate the point rationally, let's take it to PM; I'm always up for a good first-principles showdown.

As for the rest, see my "Let me try this again," above.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sun Aug 22, 2010 9:12 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:So let me revise: when they complain that other passengers at the airport point and whisper at them, they can't complain.

Why not?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Steroid » Sun Aug 22, 2010 9:18 pm UTC

That's what I get for using a shorthand term. Erase and correct: I don't want to hear sympathy when they complain that other passengers at the airport point and whisper at them

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sun Aug 22, 2010 9:20 pm UTC

Again: Why not?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby PeterCai » Sun Aug 22, 2010 9:35 pm UTC

steroid is like that kid who complain about the foreign-exchange student getting extra time in english exam. yes, we don't consider you and muslim equal, because, well, you aren't the one getting extra searches in the airport.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Aug 22, 2010 9:42 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:Really? To me, when anyone from another country tries to educate me on how my country ought to be run, I tell them to butt out, and I think of them as arrogant and self-righteous.
Even when you are wrong and they are right?

Also, you are aware that the person building this mosque is an American citizen, right?
Steroid wrote:But you didn't say (the first time) that what was important was that I felt justified in being bigoted. You said that it was important that I felt justified in being an idiot. I am not an idiot, the implication was that I was, therefore I took it as an insult. But yes, it is important that I not have to construct a rational argument against an evil person like a radical Muslim terrorist. He, being evil, should have no advantage over me, being good. If I decline to give him such an advantage, I do feel justified.
What if he isn't a terrorist, or even an extremist? Are you justified then?
Steroid wrote:Ah, but it is a zero-sum game between Islam and me. If the mosque is completed, I will be unhappy. If it is moved, altered, or cancelled, I will be happy. To reverse Ghandi, I like your Muslims, I do not like your Islam. I do not like its precepts, its principles, its practices, or its pillars. I would have people abandon the ideas and adopt others. I want it discredited and its proponents forced by circumstance to choose between the tenets of Islam and my approval. I, as a radical fundamentalist libertarian, do not act against any person or group who is merely doing what they want. But I do think against them and speak against them when their ideas conflict with mine.
So you wouldn't oppose this on legal grounds--as a libertarian you believe in personal freedoms and individual rights, so it is morally wrong for you to fight the mosque on the basis of law--but you don't like how it makes you feel? So, basically, your opposition is wholly and utterly irrelevant until Muslims start caring about your feelings?

(Spoiler: They won't.)
Steroid wrote:To do so I must draw distinction between America the country, America the government, and America the idea. Islam has no country and no government, so its ideas are undisturbed by the movements of countries and governments. The idea of America, to my view, comprises the idea that religion ought to be a private thing and that religious clashes ought to be avoided. To codify that idea in law, America the government has crafted the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. To put that idea forth in practice, America the country has, for the most part, kept religion out of the interactions of people. When you deal with a Jew or a Hindu or a Christian in the course of secular activity, his religion does not come into play (again, for the most part). So no, the mosque, even in the Freedom Tower, does not force into retreat America the government or America the country, but it does advance against America the idea. It is making a spectacle of the religion. It is causing a clash instead of avoiding one. It is causing Americans, such as myself, who would otherwise be quite content to ignore Islam, to take cognizance of it, and that is a retreat.
It's a retreat of your ideal of America--one in which religion is irrelevant. This is a magical view of America that is in complete denial of the reality.

I also find it kind of weird that a professed libertarian would value peaceful ignorance to a clash of ideologies.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Steroid » Sun Aug 22, 2010 10:00 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Again: Why not?


Because if I do, then I want to hear sympathy equally for those who are complaining about ground zero Cordoba 51. I'm trying to get to where we don't have a double standard. I want to lay out where it is that reasonable people agree that anyone can, with merit:

-Take an action.
-Complain/get pissed about an action taken by another.
-Complain/get pissed about the complaints made by another
-Use force or government to curtail any of the above.

Then if there are any meritorious and reasonable instances of the above that Muslims have engaged in but Americans in general or myself in particular have not, I wish to have that acknowledged so that I can know exactly what my license is in making further engagements to advance my values where they clash with those of Muslims.

Can we do that?

The Great Hippo wrote:
Steroid wrote:Really? To me, when anyone from another country tries to educate me on how my country ought to be run, I tell them to butt out, and I think of them as arrogant and self-righteous.
Even when you are wrong and they are right?

Yes. If I am wrong (and being wrong here can be easily conflated with having different goals or different estimates on how to achieve similar goals), he is better served by acting right and taking a material advantage over me, putting me in the position of either having to change my view or lag behind him.

Steroid wrote:But you didn't say (the first time) that what was important was that I felt justified in being bigoted. You said that it was important that I felt justified in being an idiot. I am not an idiot, the implication was that I was, therefore I took it as an insult. But yes, it is important that I not have to construct a rational argument against an evil person like a radical Muslim terrorist. He, being evil, should have no advantage over me, being good. If I decline to give him such an advantage, I do feel justified.
What if he isn't a terrorist, or even an extremist? Are you justified then?

If he is rational, I meet him with reason. If he is violent I meet him with violence. If he is bigoted I meet him with bigotry. I can not think of a greater justification than to meet people in kind.

So you wouldn't oppose this on legal grounds--as a libertarian you believe in personal freedoms and individual rights, so it is morally wrong for you to fight the mosque on the basis of law--but you don't like how it makes you feel? So, basically, your opposition is wholly and utterly irrelevant until Muslims start caring about your feelings?

(Spoiler: They won't.)


If you think that social debate has bearing only on the political realm, I won't argue, but will take what I see as an advantage. I believe that if I can make more people amenable to my position, it will give those positions greater stroke in the private sector, and perhaps someday the next Muslim who wishes to build in a sensitive location will find an unwilling seller, or one who makes him pay more money, thus depleting his resources.

It's a retreat of your ideal of America--one in which religion is irrelevant. This is a magical view of America that is in complete denial of the reality.

On whose ideal of America should I base my view? Or am I confined to the status quo? In any case, it's a coherent argument, which was what was asked for.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sun Aug 22, 2010 10:12 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:Because if I do, then I want to hear sympathy equally for those who are complaining about ground zero Cordoba 51.

Why? I don't categorically sympathize with people who complain; I do sympathize with victims of harassment, racism, and religious prejudice. This is not a "double standard" in any objectionable sense of the term. Is there some other criterion under which I should sympathize with the Park51 protesters?

Steroid wrote:Yes. If I am wrong (and being wrong here can be easily conflated with having different goals or different estimates on how to achieve similar goals), he is better served by acting right and taking a material advantage over me, putting me in the position of either having to change my view or lag behind him.

Might makes right much?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Aug 22, 2010 10:22 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:Yes. If I am wrong (and being wrong here can be easily conflated with having different goals or different estimates on how to achieve similar goals), he is better served by acting right and taking a material advantage over me, putting me in the position of either having to change my view or lag behind him.
You value how truth is presented more than you value truth itself? So in national discussions you'd be on the side of things like Deutsch Physiks?

2 + 2 = 4. Regardless of how you package this truth--insultingly or politely, through word or through deed--it remains true. The fact that you would turn your nose up in the face of truth becaues you don't like the wrapping paper is... pretty incredible.

Please do us all an immense favor and avoid any careers where you are required to make important decisions. I don't think you're qualified.
Steroid wrote:If he is rational, I meet him with reason. If he is violent I meet him with violence. If he is bigoted I meet him with bigotry. I can not think of a greater justification than to meet people in kind.
So your whole description justifying bigotry in the face of every Muslim was BS?
Steroid wrote:If you think that social debate has bearing only on the political realm, I won't argue, but will take what I see as an advantage. I believe that if I can make more people amenable to my position, it will give those positions greater stroke in the private sector, and perhaps someday the next Muslim who wishes to build in a sensitive location will find an unwilling seller, or one who makes him pay more money, thus depleting his resources.
That's fine--I really don't care so long as you're not interested in passing laws or changing the legal landscape. Of course, it bares noting that by trying to exclude outspoken Muslims (and by outspoken, I merely mean those who would rather you know they're Muslim than not) from your space, you are not serving your own ends (assumedly the abolishment of Islam from public sight). But you've already established that you're more interested in sounding correct than being correct.
Steroid wrote:On whose ideal of America should I base my view? Or am I confined to the status quo? In any case, it's a coherent argument, which was what was asked for.
I'd prefer people base their ideal of America on attainable realities rather than weird fantasy. Religion is part of the landscape; it matters to more than 75% of the population.

User avatar
mythago
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:27 pm UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby mythago » Sun Aug 22, 2010 10:27 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:In that case, all I'm asking for in return is equal tolerance and acceptance for any Christian, Jew, or Atheist who does something that pisses off Muslims.


If you live in the US, you might want to reacquaint yourself with the First Amendment, and with some of the writings of the Framers in regards to religious freedom. You will not find any language saying "....but this ONLY applies to groups that also agree to do the same everywhere in the world!" (Which is a good thing, because Christians would find themselves SOL.)

Second, you seem to have this bizarre notion that there is a Muslim hive mind, such that if Wahhabis in Saudia Arabia are intolerant (in violation of their own faith's teachings), then it's totally cool to shit on moderate, pro-tolerance Muslims in America.

I think you'll find the issue easier to understand if you stop thinking of it in terms of teams, as if this were some kind of ideological sports game.
three lines of plaintext
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Malice » Sun Aug 22, 2010 10:29 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Again: Why not?


Because if I do, then I want to hear sympathy equally for those who are complaining about ground zero Cordoba 51. I'm trying to get to where we don't have a double standard. I want to lay out where it is that reasonable people agree that anyone can, with merit:

-Take an action.
-Complain/get pissed about an action taken by another.
-Complain/get pissed about the complaints made by another
-Use force or government to curtail any of the above.

Then if there are any meritorious and reasonable instances of the above that Muslims have engaged in but Americans in general or myself in particular have not, I wish to have that acknowledged so that I can know exactly what my license is in making further engagements to advance my values where they clash with those of Muslims.

Can we do that?


What you're complaining about is not the existence of a double standard, but the existence of a standard--an ideological basis (outlined by TGB) for deciding which actions actually merit complaint, and which complaints therefore merit sympathy.

So, no, we can't, because that's crazy. The irrational unhappiness of people who, through ignorance, associate evil acts with people who had nothing to do with those acts, is not equally deserving of our sympathy and respect as the rational unhappiness of people who, through the ignorance of others, are targeted unfairly for extra searches at the airport. There's no such thing as "outrage relativism."
Image

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby aleflamedyud » Sun Aug 22, 2010 10:56 pm UTC

This is the most retarded, manufactured "controversy" I've ever fucking heard of. Can we have this thread locked? Can we all just admit that the Republicans are trolling and stop talking to them like they're worthy of our attention?
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Steroid » Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:14 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Steroid wrote:Because if I do, then I want to hear sympathy equally for those who are complaining about ground zero Cordoba 51.

Why? I don't categorically sympathize with people who complain; I do sympathize with victims of harassment, racism, and religious prejudice. This is not a "double standard" in any objectionable sense of the term. Is there some other criterion under which I should sympathize with the Park51 protesters?

And is it your contention that there is no instance where an American has been the victim of such harassment, racism, or prejudice from a Muslim? I think we differ in this view as I believe it is equally unsympathetic to be prejudiced in favor of your own religion as it is to be prejudiced against another. A religion is an idea and not one that need be defended rationally. So to be fair, I believe it is wrong to be prejudiced against any idea, not just religious ones. So if saying, "I believe in Allah" engenders prejudice, and saying, "I think it is wrong to believe in Allah" does not, I do object to that as a double standard.

Might makes right much?


Might doesn't make right, but it defines it. If, in the real world, doing right results in less might, then either the world is unjust or the definition of right is incorrect.

The Great Hippo wrote:
Steroid wrote:Yes. If I am wrong (and being wrong here can be easily conflated with having different goals or different estimates on how to achieve similar goals), he is better served by acting right and taking a material advantage over me, putting me in the position of either having to change my view or lag behind him.


2 + 2 = 4. Regardless of how you package this truth--insultingly or politely, through word or through deed--it remains true. The fact that you would turn your nose up in the face of truth becaues you don't like the wrapping paper is... pretty incredible.


But if I did work from 2+2!=4, I could easily be convinced of the truth the first time my equations didn't balance or some structure I build fell down. I would not need a counselor from another land to tell me the Truth; the real world would do it. Now, in political matters, there is a far less clear Truth. If a Muslim believes that we mean to Christianize their land (which is where this whole thing started), I don't expect him to take my word for it; I expect him to be skeptical, because I in turn am skeptical of anyone who evinces a political position as regards my land.

Steroid wrote:If he is rational, I meet him with reason. If he is violent I meet him with violence. If he is bigoted I meet him with bigotry. I can not think of a greater justification than to meet people in kind.
So your whole description justifying bigotry in the face of every Muslim was BS?


It is not so much BS as a position I hold in reserve as last resort if I cannot achieve understanding. If I face what I consider to be untenable bigotry, I see no reason not to pass it along. I would hope that such an eventuality need never be reached because my position is understood and accepted.

But you've already established that you're more interested in sounding correct than being correct.

I would say rather that I'm more interested in being correct in theory than in practice, because I think that over the long term, practice reflects theory.

mythago wrote:If you live in the US, you might want to reacquaint yourself with the First Amendment, and with some of the writings of the Framers in regards to religious freedom. You will not find any language saying "....but this ONLY applies to groups that also agree to do the same everywhere in the world!" (Which is a good thing, because Christians would find themselves SOL.)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that I am contending that Congress may make law respecting the free exercise of religion of groups that do not make such laws? I do not believe I have said that.

Second, you seem to have this bizarre notion that there is a Muslim hive mind, such that if Wahhabis in Saudia Arabia are intolerant (in violation of their own faith's teachings), then it's totally cool to shit on moderate, pro-tolerance Muslims in America.

No, I do not have that notion. I do have two positions that I think you could confuse from springing from that notion:

1. That it is permissible only to, as you put it, shit on intolerance by decrying the intolerance per se, and not on the other aspects of what it is the intolerant person is basing his intolerance on.

2. That I personally disagree with aspects of Islam that have nothing to do with tolerance, freedom, prejudice, or politics. I disagree with Islam culturally, and wish to act against the ideology wherever it flourishes.

Malice wrote:What you're complaining about is not the existence of a double standard, but the existence of a standard--an ideological basis (outlined by TGB) for deciding which actions actually merit complaint, and which complaints therefore merit sympathy.

I'm not complaining; I'm asking what the standard is. If the standard comprises prejudice against a religion but not against disliking the religion, it's a bad, and I contend double, standard.

So, no, we can't, because that's crazy. The irrational unhappiness of people who, through ignorance, associate evil acts with people who had nothing to do with those acts, is not equally deserving of our sympathy and respect as the rational unhappiness of people who, through the ignorance of others, are targeted unfairly for extra searches at the airport. There's no such thing as "outrage relativism."


But is it equal to the unhappiness of those same people when I, a private citizen unrelated to the TSA keep my eye on them specifically at the airport? Or when I disparage their religion by depicting the prophet or similar acts that bring about outrage?

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:27 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:And is it your contention that there is no instance where an American has been the victim of such harassment, racism, or prejudice from a Muslim?

Of course not. What does that have to do with this thread, where we have been talking about harassment, racism, and prejudice against Muslims?

Steroid wrote:So if saying, "I believe in Allah" engenders prejudice, and saying, "I think it is wrong to believe in Allah" does not, I do object to that as a double standard.

The opposite of "I believe in Allah" is "I do not believe in Allah." Neither is objectionable. "I think it is wrong to believe in Allah" implies, accurately or not, a moral judgment, and I would object to that morality.

Steroid wrote:Might doesn't make right, but it defines it. If, in the real world, doing right results in less might, then either the world is unjust or the definition of right is incorrect.

Hmm, fair enough. I think the world is unjust, and I think it's superstitious nonsense to think that there's any force of Justice behind the universe trying to make it more just. In other words, I don't believe in Allah. Are you saying that it's easier to believe in a justifying tendency that brings success to people who do the right thing than to just believe that the world isn't just?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:31 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:But if I did work from 2+2!=4, I could easily be convinced of the truth the first time my equations didn't balance or some structure I build fell down.
There's a reason I cited Deustche Physiks; did you actually glance over the article? Germany blew over half a decade's worth of resources on building up structures before they started to fall down. All of this could have been avoided had German politics allowed for the possibility of foreign influences (particularly Jewish ones) to be correct. By excluding Jews from their space, Germany blew over 5 years of physics--and any chance of obtaining the bomb--out of its ass. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Steroid wrote:Now, in political matters, there is a far less clear Truth. If a Muslim believes that we mean to Christianize their land (which is where this whole thing started), I don't expect him to take my word for it; I expect him to be skeptical, because I in turn am skeptical of anyone who evinces a political position as regards my land.
You know, there's a simple way to test whether or not Islam is the better approach. It costs us nothing, and is in line with the rhetoric concerning the American Way: It is to allow Islam and its followers the opportunity to succeed.

You speak of might defining right; I also believe that what works is what works, and that our morality is dictated by reality--not fantasy. Rather than working to exclude Muslims from our space, why don't you simply welcome them and observe the results? Ultimately, reality will prove to be a far more accurate--and harsh--judge than you.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby aleflamedyud » Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:57 pm UTC

Are you nutbags just arguing about whether Christianity or Islam is a better religion at this point? BOW BEFORE SHAI-HULUD!
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests