A mosque at Ground Zero!

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Agreed. Nudeyorker's interjection was bizarre and utterly nonsensical. TomCat and Hilaire were arguing certain points; TomCat criticized what Hilaire had put forward as "irrelevant." To do that is not playing "post police." It is a perfectly legitimate form of criticism.

Not bizarre, and certainly not nonsensical. :smile:


hilaire. Member.

 

[wallaboi]

Since this is the second time I've seen this in the past couple of days. You are not the post police! It is not your place to say what is or is not relevant to the discussions in this thread or in the forums as a whole; if someone has something to say on the subject or issue.
Thank you
nudeyorker
Moderator

Geez...talk about a policed state. Is this an official warning? If so state the contravention of Tos. Otherwise, keep your posts to those of your member status. Now the mods rule on relevance or not

 

[nudeyorker]

Tomcat I simply interjected that it is not your place to say what is relevant or not relevant to a conversation simply because you do not agree with it or don't like it. You certainly should not be telling other members not to post their thoughts or ideas as long as it relates to the subject.
You certainly have every right to defend your viewpoint and challenge others. But seriously don't you see your own hypocrisy? You have spent almost this entire thread giving a lesson (to most of us who don't need it) in constitutional law 101 and yet you try to censor everyones viewpoint whom you don't like or disagree.
I'm sorry if you think I'm condescending but it's a character flaw of mine when I deal with people who act like petulant children.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Geez...talk about a policed state.

:biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1: Hell yes! You better believe we're going to come crashing through your door in the middle of night and jackboot your arses in to the bowels of some anonymous secret gaol. Especially when people speak out! We'll have you denounced by your neighbours and relatives, and then we'll plant kiddy porn on your computer just because we can, then we'll disappear you... :biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1:


hilaire (who is joking). Member.

 

[wallaboi]

:biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1: Hell yes! You better believe we're going to come crashing through your door in the middle of night and jackboot your arses in to the bowels of some anonymous secret gaol. Especially when people speak out! We'll have you denounced by your neighbours and relatives, and then we'll plant kiddy porn on your computer just because we can, then we'll disappear you... :biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1:


hilaire (who is joking). Member.

Not at all humorous. You missed the point.

 

[Industrialsize]

A sad moment for the USA at the Protest against the "Community Center":
Anti-Park51ers threaten black man in hat for looking Muslim

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwaNRWMN-F4&feature=

From the man who took the video:
A man walks through the crowd at the Ground Zero protest and is mistaken as a Muslim. The crowd turns on him and confronts him. The man in the blue hard hat calls him a coward and tries to fight him. The tall man who I think was one of the organizers tried to get between the two men. Later I caught up with the man who's name is Kenny. He is a Union carpenter who works at Ground Zero. We discussed what a scary moment that was for him. I told him that I hoped it did not ruin his day.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Not at all humorous. You missed the point.

Oh I got your point. I just didn't think it was worth treating seriously. I never was much good at telling jokes though :wink::biggrin1::tongue:

hilaire, Member.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

It seems to me that claiming another's point(s) is (are) irrelevant is a perfectly acceptable tactic in arguing.
And it's not the same as saying that someone shouldn't post their (allegedly irrelevant) thoughts.

 

[nudeyorker]

It seems to me that claiming another's point(s) is (are) irrelevant is a perfectly acceptable tactic in arguing.
And it's not the same as saying that someone shouldn't post their (allegedly irrelevant) thoughts.

That was my point he was telling people what and how to post. He made posts telling people not to post when it was not off topic, but irrelevant to him.

 

[nudeyorker]

No. I strongly disagree. The only relevant question is whether US law permits us to deny the building of the mosque.

This is where my point started last week and hopefully where it can end. There are many points of view on this and almost every issue on this site.

 

[Smaccoms]

Since this is the second time I've seen this in the past couple of days. You are not the post police! It is not your place to say what is or is not relevant to the discussions in this thread or in the forums as a whole; if someone has something to say on the subject or issue.
Thank you
nudeyorker
Moderator

If no one is allowed to discuss what is and is not relevant in terms of a specific arguement, how are they supposed to argue it in the first place? That's the entire point of bringing an important issue to the fornt lines for discussion in the first place. The entire discussion of this issue in the media is whether or not building a Mosque at ground Zero is relevant or not.

It seems to me your goal was to suspend the discussion altogether and distract people with something meaningless. This obviously is an important issue people wish to vent about, even if it is meaningless on the whole of American politics and law.

 

[nudeyorker]

If no one is allowed to discuss what is and is not relevant in terms of a specific arguement, how are they supposed to argue it in the first place? That's the entire point of bringing an important issue to the fornt lines for discussion in the first place. The entire discussion of this issue in the media is whether or not building a Mosque at ground Zero is relevant or not.

It seems to me your goal was to suspend the discussion altogether and distract people with something meaningless. This obviously is an important issue people wish to vent about, even if it is meaningless on the whole of American politics and law.

Why don't you read the posts I made prior to yours? I think I explained that stating that something was irrelevant and arguing your point is just fine. Telling people that that points are irrelevant and have no point in the discussion and not to post them is not OK.

 

[TomCat84]

This is where my point started last week and hopefully where it can end. There are many points of view on this and almost every issue on this site.

nudeyorker, I like you, despite my sarcastic response to your admonishment. Telling someone their point is irrelevant is COMPLETELY legitimate. A legitimate response from them would be to refute my assertion- to show how it IS relevant.

 

[mitchymo]

QUOTE=Pendlum;2948502]

As an American, I wouldn't have it any other way. As vile as I find neonazis to be, I think they have every right to peacefully assemble where ever they want, just like anyone else. So what if you don't like what they have to say? You defeat their misinformation and hatred with truth and knowledge, not legislation and government bullying. That only fuels them.

I don't see an act of good passing into law as government bullying in any way.

As for defeating? Are you sure about that? As far as i'm aware, you can use as much truth and knowledge shouting til you're blue in the face and yet it won't make an iota of difference to those who don't care.
Its a complete hands off approach, you guys might like it that way but the proactive approach is to make it clear that the government which represents the people will not accept such obvious attempts to promote hatred and cause deliberate offence.
In the UK, marches by neo nazis if felt provocative in their chosen location can be prevented from taking place or broken up on grounds of public disorder. And yes, if the government can do it for neo nazis then they COULD do it to anyone, but people here and i guess most of Europe are comfortable enough in security to know that governments are not going to do anything ridiculously stupid, even if they often do things that are unpopular.

It seems that a lot of the counter argument i'm hearing is all about abuse of civil liberties at the hands of government. Do you guys really distrust government THAT much? Don't get me wrong, over here we have a low level of trust in our government 95% of the time (stat made up for effect) but i wouldn't say we felt insecure about it.

Maybe you feel as if is the government being the protector. But if you could really see, the role that you'd really have the government be is a bully under the guise of a guardian. By not interfering with their rights simply because they aren't nice is truly being the protector. As an atheist, I truly appreciate it. Just think, if the government deemed my belief offensive (and there are people who do think that in this country) the government, in an effort to 'protect the sensitivities of the religious' could try and stamp me out like an insect.

This is the very kind of thing that we would see as being a completely ridiculous thing a government could do.
Government represents us the people, they are highly, nay, very highly unlikely to do such a thing. Principly because it could never be justified as a 'good act'. Stamping out bigotry IS

 

[TomCat84]

Tomcat I simply interjected that it is not your place to say what is relevant or not relevant to a conversation simply because you do not agree with it or don't like it. You certainly should not be telling other members not to post their thoughts or ideas as long as it relates to the subject.
You certainly have every right to defend your viewpoint and challenge others. But seriously don't you see your own hypocrisy? You have spent almost this entire thread giving a lesson (to most of us who don't need it) in constitutional law 101 and yet you try to censor everyones viewpoint whom you don't like or disagree.
I'm sorry if you think I'm condescending but it's a character flaw of mine when I deal with people who act like petulant children.

I'll ignore your unprofessional un-mod like response and let my previous response stand, as I had not seen it before I saw your last post. Saying something is irrelevant is MY point of view. And I'm sorry- but to what degree other Muslim countries tolerate churches IS irrelevant.

 

[mitchymo]

nudeyorker, I like you, despite my sarcastic response to your admonishment. Telling someone their point is irrelevant is COMPLETELY legitimate. A legitimate response from them would be to refute my assertion- to show how it IS relevant.

There is a slight difficulty in doing so however TomCat. If you operate only from an objective viewpoint then a subjective one will NEVER be relevant.

How is it not relevant to go beyond the legality of the issue on this subject, isn't that how law is amended?

 

[TomCat84]

There is a slight difficulty in doing so however TomCat. If you operate only from an objective viewpoint then a subjective one will NEVER be relevant.

How is it not relevant to go beyond the legality of the issue on this subject, isn't that how law is amended?

If people want to refute my assertion, they are certainly free to do so. And I'm sorry, but until telling someone their point is irrelevant is against the TOS, I'm going to continue to do so. If people do not like that I say certain points are irrelevant, they are free to put me on ignore. My decision on whether or not something is irrelevant is not binding- I'm not a moderator, so people should feel free to tell me off.

 

[Hoss]

A sad moment for the USA at the Protest against the "Community Center":
Anti-Park51ers threaten black man in hat for looking Muslim

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwaNRWMN-F4&feature=

From the man who took the video:
A man walks through the crowd at the Ground Zero protest and is mistaken as a Muslim. The crowd turns on him and confronts him. The man in the blue hard hat calls him a coward and tries to fight him. The tall man who I think was one of the organizers tried to get between the two men. Later I caught up with the man who's name is Kenny. He is a Union carpenter who works at Ground Zero. We discussed what a scary moment that was for him. I told him that I hoped it did not ruin his day.

very sad.:frown1:

I saw the news yesterday and this woman who is antimosque kept screaming at a person who is pro mosque and she just seemed so ugly with all her hate. How can I even consider such hateful people as people to listen to when they scream their hatred of muslims?

 

[mitchymo]

If people want to refute my assertion, they are certainly free to do so. And I'm sorry, but until telling someone their point is irrelevant is against the TOS, I'm going to continue to do so. If people do not like that I say certain points are irrelevant, they are free to put me on ignore. My decision on whether or not something is irrelevant is not binding- I'm not a moderator, so people should feel free to tell me off.

Well technically, you were, but that was'nt my point, i'm not talking about NY telling you what you can and can't say is irrelevant. MY point is that the issue is not so straightforward as it is from a legal perspective and that using such to tell others their views are irrelevant is what is wrong.

This issue has stirred up a hornets nest, and that can only be resolved on a bigger scale where the legality of this individual issue is not entirely seperate anymore.
The question is not the same to everybody after all is it. To some, its 'is it unlawful to deny the building?' to others its' should it NOT be built contrary to the law due to sensitivities'.

edit:- forgot to add the word NOT, would'nt have made any sense at all.

 

[Calboner]

A sad moment for the USA at the Protest against the "Community Center":
Anti-Park51ers threaten black man in hat for looking Muslim

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwaNRWMN-F4&feature=

From the man who took the video:
A man walks through the crowd at the Ground Zero protest and is mistaken as a Muslim. The crowd turns on him and confronts him. The man in the blue hard hat calls him a coward and tries to fight him. The tall man who I think was one of the organizers tried to get between the two men. Later I caught up with the man who's name is Kenny. He is a Union carpenter who works at Ground Zero. We discussed what a scary moment that was for him. I told him that I hoped it did not ruin his day.

What a bunch of louts. People who try to dress up their bigotry as some kind of principle with claptrap about "hallowed ground" and the like should watch this video.