A mosque at Ground Zero!

[D_Tim McGnaw]

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.

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.

The Politics forum rules-

3) If a discussion gets out of line (by which we mean that insults are being used or discussion has turned to arguing) a moderator may post in the thread to remind users to adhere to the rules. If the membership are unable to follow the rules after this reminder has been posted then the thread will be closed.

Now I was in no way personally offended by your post Tomcat, but the Mods have a responsibility to maintain a sense of open discussion and intelligent (as possible) and respectful debate in this forum. If Nudey felt that you weren't contributing fully to the maintenance of that atmosphere he was right to make that clear.


The Politics forum is still to some extent going through a transitional period when Mod rulings will seem out of place from time to time by comparison with how this forum operated in the past.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I've tried so hard to stay out of this thread since my last fallout, however...

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.

To think that our nation has come to this. Absolutely pathetic. I guess the first requirement for being a terrorist these days is to be brown? I seriously wonder if anyone of the disgusting people at that "rally" would have done the same thing if it was Simon Keeler that walked by? When does it stop, people?

Until then, I'll be patiently counting down the days until I receive my papers telling me that my name has been changed to Toby and to report to the nearest plantation. That was a joke, if only a stingingly relevant one.

 

[Industrialsize]

If the "Ground Zero" mosque already exists, does it nullify the debate?

Ground Zero: Inside the Park51 Mosque - Video - TIME.com

However, Muslims have been using the proposed site (Park 51) for Ramadan and Friday prayers for almost two years. Check out TIME's exclusive video of prayer services at Park51 where attendees discuss the mosque and the media frenzy surrounding it.

Read more: An Exclusive Look Inside the Ground Zero Mosque - TIME NewsFeed
​

 

[Smaccoms]

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.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? That's pretty funny...

 

[Smaccoms]

I've tried so hard to stay out of this thread since my last fallout, however...



To think that our nation has come to this. Absolutely pathetic. I guess the first requirement for being a terrorist these days is to be brown? I seriously wonder if anyone of the disgusting people at that "rally" would have done the same thing if it was Simon Keeler that walked by? When does it stop, people?

Until then, I'll be patiently counting down the days until I receive my papers telling me that my name has been changed to Toby and to report to the nearest plantation. That was a joke, if only a stingingly relevant one.

:haha::haha::haha::haha::arms::arms::arms::arms::arms:

 

[TomCat84]

The Politics forum rules-



Now I was in no way personally offended by your post Tomcat, but the Mods have a responsibility to maintain a sense of open discussion and intelligent (as possible) and respectful debate in this forum. If Nudey felt that you weren't contributing fully to the maintenance of that atmosphere he was right to make that clear.


The Politics forum is still to some extent going through a transitional period when Mod rulings will seem out of place from time to time by comparison with how this forum operated in the past.

Yes, a mod may post in the thread to remind people to adhere to the rules...but my point is that unless I'm missing something, telling someone something is irrelevant is NOT against the rules (not even telling someone NOT to post something specifically), thus he can't tell me not to say something is irrelevant. As mitchymo JUST demonstrated, folks are perfectly capable and able of refuting my assertion that something is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. He's doing what the mod team has always professed they werent interested in doing- directly directing the direction of the discussion. His position would allow someone to bring in something having nothing to do with the topic, and would bar me or anyone else from pointing out the irrelevance. No- unless I get an official warning that my conduct is against the Forum rules or TOS, I'm going to continue pointing out irrelevance. His response, calling me a petulant child, was COMPLETELY inappropriate for a member of the moderating team, and it was out of line.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Yes, a mod may post in the thread to remind people to adhere to the rules...but my point is that unless I'm missing something, telling someone something is irrelevant is NOT against the rules (not even telling someone NOT to post something specifically), thus he can't tell me not to say something is irrelevant. As mitchymo JUST demonstrated, folks are perfectly capable and able of refuting my assertion that something is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. He's doing what the mod team has always professed they werent interested in doing- directly directing the direction of the discussion. His position would allow someone to bring in something having nothing to do with the topic, and would bar me or anyone else from pointing out the irrelevance. No- unless I get an official warning that my conduct is against the Forum rules or TOS, I'm going to continue pointing out irrelevance. His response, calling me a petulant child, was COMPLETELY inappropriate for a member of the moderating team, and it was out of line.

You can argue anything you like is irrelevant if you want Tomcat, that's not at issue. Argue and explain the irrelevance of someone else's argument all you wish. Attempting to direct how the discussion in a thread develops by dismissing the arguments of others as irrelevant or the appearing to do this is not on however. I understand how you might be confused about that, it's a finely drawn distinction, but it's a distinction which counts nonetheless. And it is down to Moderators to make that distinction in this instance.

 

[wallaboi]

You can argue anything you like is irrelevant if you want Tomcat, that's not at issue. Argue and explain the irrelevance of someone else's argument all you wish. Attempting to direct how the discussion in a thread develops by dismissing the arguments of others as irrelevant or the appearing to do this is not on however. I understand how you might be confused about that, it's a finely drawn distinction, but it's a distinction which counts nonetheless. And it is down to Moderators to make that distinction in this instance.

Hilaire and Nudeyorker the time has come for the both of you to get the hell out of the way of this debate. You have both obstructed and polluted this debate long enough with your LPSG politics. Noone has violated any Tos.

 

[Smaccoms]

Yes, a mod may post in the thread to remind people to adhere to the rules...but my point is that unless I'm missing something, telling someone something is irrelevant is NOT against the rules (not even telling someone NOT to post something specifically), thus he can't tell me not to say something is irrelevant. As mitchymo JUST demonstrated, folks are perfectly capable and able of refuting my assertion that something is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. He's doing what the mod team has always professed they werent interested in doing- directly directing the direction of the discussion. His position would allow someone to bring in something having nothing to do with the topic, and would bar me or anyone else from pointing out the irrelevance. No- unless I get an official warning that my conduct is against the Forum rules or TOS, I'm going to continue pointing out irrelevance. His response, calling me a petulant child, was COMPLETELY inappropriate for a member of the moderating team, and it was out of line.

I'm totally with you on this buddy, the others are just being silly or:crackhead:s haha

 

[Smaccoms]

Hilaire and Nudeyorker the time has come for the both of you to get the hell out of the way of this debate. You have both obstructed and polluted this debate long enough with your LPSG politics. Noone has violated any Tos.

Exactly, they just need to get over themselves and quit while they're ahead...well quit anyway

 

[Pendlum]

Speaking of derailing threads. :tongue:

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I don't think TomCat did anything out of the ordinary, much less something that requires the intervention of mods.

 

[Calboner]

Have we run out of things to say about Park 51?

 

[Pendlum]

Posted for humor.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/TacgJ.jpg

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Have we run out of things to say about Park 51?

Nope. Indie's post seems extremely relevant to me:

If the "Ground Zero" mosque already exists, does it nullify the debate?
... Muslims have been using the proposed site (Park 51) for Ramadan and Friday prayers for almost two years.

If this is true, then all we're dealing with is an upgrade of a mosque that has operated for years and caused no harm and no ripple of concern.
The whole issue has been manufactured.

Posted for humor.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/TacgJ.jpg

That's about it, in a nutshell.

 

[Industrialsize]

If this is true, then all we're dealing with is an upgrade of a mosque that has operated for years and caused no harm and no ripple of concern.
The whole issue has been manufactured.


]

Bingo!.....Here's what Ron(not Rand) Paul, the world's most famous Libertarian, had to say about the whole situation:
"The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims," Ron wrote in a statement to RonPaul.com "This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative's aggressive wars."

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don't want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society--protecting liberty.​

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Here's what Ron(not Rand) Paul, the world's most famous Libertarian, had to say about the whole situation:
"The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims," Ron wrote in a statement to RonPaul.com "This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative's aggressive wars."

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don't want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society--protecting liberty.​

That seems to sum it up.
(Having said which, that particular site does seem untactfully chosen. But if they've operated a mosque there without problems for two years, then its choice seems perfectly natural.)

 

[TomCat84]

You can argue anything you like is irrelevant if you want Tomcat, that's not at issue. Argue and explain the irrelevance of someone else's argument all you wish. Attempting to direct how the discussion in a thread develops by dismissing the arguments of others as irrelevant or the appearing to do this is not on however. I understand how you might be confused about that, it's a finely drawn distinction, but it's a distinction which counts nonetheless. And it is down to Moderators to make that distinction in this instance.

No, there's no difference. Saying something is irrelevant is the same as telling someone not to continue posting that same point. There's no distinction. The issue here now is whether you and NudeYorker are now saying that one CANNOT tell someone their points are irrelevant. And another point- how can I explain the irrelevance of a post without saying it's irrelevant. Here's the offending post which NY took offense with.

Everything you wrote is irrelevant. The issue at hand is whether or not this group of people should be allowed to build a community center which caters to those of the Muslim faith approximately 2 blocks from "ground zero". The issue is not how other Muslim countries treat religious minorities or anything like that. To try and bring ourselves down to the level of intolerance seen in other countries is hardly something we should strive for.

While I missed the mark completely (I mean, I got your position flat out wrong), I didn't tell you not to post something. And in your very next post, you refuted my assertion that it was irrelevant. You were agreeing with me. Yay! Case closed. Or was it?

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

The moderators are way out of line. My conduct hardly rises to the level requiring moderator intervention. And if it does in your eyes, then let's do away with the notion that mod decisions are made in any kind of logical sense or order. Get your new rule right out in the open and into the published forum rules. This abstractness and vagueness is exactly what a lot of people are having issues with on this message board. You lay down the law, we think we are following the rules, and then BAM! I get a moderator warning. Formulate a new rule and put it down in writing. Otherwise, I'm going to go with what I previously knew. Back to the topic at hand.

 

[Industrialsize]

A short Video called "Stop the War on Prayer"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKISER0PG-0&feature=player_embedded

 

[Industrialsize]

FLASHBACK: In 2006 joint appearance, Beck appeared to call Imam Rauf a "good Muslim"

August 23, 2010 8:30 am ET by Ben Dimiero
One of the main lines of attack in the never-ending conservative freak-out over the plan to build an Islamic community center in downtown Manhattan has been attempting to smear the developers of the center -- Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf in particular -- as "radical." In their usual despicable fashion, conservative media figures have worked hard to blur the line between the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 and the moderate Muslims who are behind the planned center.
One of the loudest voices in conservatives' fight against the center has been Glenn Beck, who has specifically targeted Imam Rauf with blatant falsehoods and hypocritical attacks in a desperate attempt to smear him as a radical.
Additionally, among other offensive comments, Beck has asked, "after you've killed 3,000 people you're going to now build your mosque?" He's also absurdly labeled the center an "actual danger" and suggested it is an "Allah-tells-me-to-blow-up-America mosque." Though we -- and many other outlets -- have repeatedly pointed out that Rauf is widely viewed as a moderate and has often denounced the extremists who carry out violent attacks in the name of Islam, Beck and his fellow demagogues continue to push the dishonest attack.
But Beck does not need to take our word for it that Imam Rauf is a moderate who distances himself from radicals -- Rauf told Beck as much while sitting at the same table with him during a 2006 discussion on ABC's Good Morning America.
FLASHBACK: In 2006 joint appearance, Beck*appeared to*call Imam Rauf a "good Muslim" | Media Matters for America


Watch the video embedded on the page linked above. It's an interview with the Cordoba Project's Imam and Glenn Beck from 2006.