|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
posted August 05, 2010 10:32 PM |
|
|
It amazes me that there is so much hypocrisy and bs in the name of political correctness.
Just look at this board. There are a lot of people in this thread who go out of their way to defend the "politically correct" side of Islam, making sure to point out the "rights" of Muslims, that not all Muslims are terrorists, that they should be allowed to practice their religion in peace, blah blah blah.
Then many of those very same people treat Christianity in the exact opposite way. There has been thread after thread where the same people who defend Islam go out of their way to ridicule, insult, point out the flaws, call Christians stupid, and take every opportunity to take a swipe at Christianity and cut it down.
That is hypocrisy at it's worse.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 10:35 PM |
|
|
It's not hypocritical. What's hypocritical is to talk about how America is a land of freedom, and then say they can't build a mosque on their property.
And it's also not hypocritical because I dislike both Christianity and Islam.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 10:43 PM |
|
|
That doesn't really make it not be hypocritical for the real cause for not being hypocritical is that you propably would defend the right to build a church somewhere else just as much... You would do that, wouldn't you dear Mvass?
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 10:45 PM |
|
|
And that post of yours is bull of the worst kind.
The islam isn't the issue here. Nor Christianity, Muslims or Christians.
The issue here is whether there is guilt by affiliation and whether American citizens are to blame for something people did who have the same religion than them, and it seems there are enough blockheads who nod enthusiastically to that.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 10:45 PM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 22:48, 05 Aug 2010.
|
@Mvass
I never said a word about you. If my post happened to follow yours or appear to address something you said, I wasn't even aware of it.
Quote:
What's hypocritical is to talk about...
Wrong! It doesn't matter what follows those words. That's flawed argument.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 10:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
the thing is, Myghty Myt, is that Elodin, in his infinite wisdom, has decided to turn this into a religious debate. I have a feeling he's pathologically afraid of having his view questioned.
I'm about to go out of town for a few days. When I get back I'll do a rebuttal of the lies told about me and about Christianity. Anyone who can read can see in the first post of the thread religion was introduced into the topic so anyone who can read sees that it is a false claim that I am the one who introduced religion into the thread. Anyone who says I claim all Muslims are responsible for 9/11 is a liar because I've never said such a thing. Some people seem to have a pathological needf to lie about me and about Christianity, but I will continue to prove them wrong.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 11:07 PM |
|
|
Religion shouldn't really even be part of this topic.
It's irrelevant background information.
There's no difference of these scenarios in my opinion:
1) A bunch of guys buys a ground at a place where there a couple of years ago happened an attack. These guys builds something on said ground.
2) A bunch of guys who belong to group X buys a ground at a place where there a couple of years ago happened an attack of which those responsible claimed to have done in the name of group X. These guys builds something on said ground, which is usually connected to group X.
3) A bunch of guys who belong to group X buys a ground at a place where there a couple of years ago happened an attack. These guys builds something on said ground, which is usually connected to group X.
4) A bunch of guys buys a ground at a place where there a couple of years ago happened an attack of which those responsible claimed to have done in the name of group X. These guys builds something on said ground.
And finally, because these people own said property, it has nothing to do with state/government investment, whereby people, except those who actually own the ground, should have no saying in this anyway, so there really should be no discussion.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 11:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And finally, because these people own said property, it has nothing to do with state/government investment, whereby people, except those who actually own the ground, should have no saying in this anyway, so there really should be no discussion.
Wrong. You and others have mentioned several times about the "right" to build a building. Nobody has a "right" to build anything. It is only by permission.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 11:23 PM |
|
|
Then they don't truely own the ground.
Edit: Also, there are no difference, in principle, between rights and permission.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 11:35 PM |
|
|
Legally they own the ground. You can debate about the meaning of ownership and what rights, if any, it gives the owner. However in practice, and with sound reasoning, ownership of property does not give the owner the right to do whatever they want with it.
There are probably thousands of pages of laws, codes and regulations defining what a person can do with the property they own. There are zoning laws, building codes, rules of use, etc. In some places there are even rules regulating what color you can paint your house.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 12:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm about to go out of town for a few days. When I get back I'll do a rebuttal of the lies told about me and about Christianity.
*clips away the correct points*
Some people seem to have a pathological needf to lie about me and about Christianity, but I will continue to prove them wrong.
Sort of.... counting? looking? pandering? More or less staring at your "reveal of truths" when it comes to Christianity, the constitution, and other things.
So far you have only submitted points to arguments you attempted to defeat, do a lot of "I AM BY THE WORD CORRECT!", and what bothers me when I read it is that its not the "cause" version of "white knighting", but its completely different from "somebody is WRONG on the internet".
While there are people who gets butthurt beyond belif(jollyjoker does it sometimes, along with bixie), fueling it is just a bad idea when your argument pattern mostly consist of absolutism when religion at the least is involved in some shady way.
The real problem is a part of 2 issues:
*If A has done a violation towards something and is member of organization K, then A is unrelated to K. Yet if somebody drags in B who is member of L, who has more or less the same laws, then L is to blame for B...... This logical fallacy is not good for a debate.
*You use arguments based on that the world is quite black and white, you are good at painting out "the enemy", but you are not good at realizing the consequences of a world that does not reflect reality properly.
Quote:
the thing is, Myghty Myt, is that Elodin, in his infinite wisdom, has decided to turn this into a religious debate. *taunt*
You are not helping, at all. While its true that Elodin has a somewhat dimmed vision regarding religion, randomly taunting is just making the debate worse.
While you did spend the rest of that post make valid points, the tact and tone of the opening's second part... is really bad.
Can you please stop acting so butthurt, while still having that good rhetoric?
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 02:10 AM |
|
|
What Bin says is true, but the point is that those laws have to be applied fairly. I'm pretty sure there isn't a clause in any of those laws that says they can be applied on the basis of the religion of the owner.
However, that said - there's still a distinction between what you can legally do and what you should do in practice. The law doesn't forbid me from sticking a knife into an electrical outlet, but that doesn't mean it's an intelligent thing to do.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 03:57 AM |
|
|
|
because something seems stupid to many people doesn't mean it is stupid. everyone sees his own reality. things aren't absolute but only exist in relation with other things. that's the same when it comes to judgements, opinions...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 04:11 AM |
|
|
I'm going to stop you right there and say that if you invoke relativism, there's no point in talking about this at all.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 07:11 AM |
|
|
What was it in the American consstitution? You shall not have any disadvantaages due to your religion or some really nice sounding stuff like that?
At this point, if you were an American muslim, how would you feel about this aspect of American life?
Wiki says, estimations vary, how many muslims live in the US, between 1.3 and 7 millions, in a racial and ethnical mix.
About being a muslim in the US after 9/11 it says:
Quote:
After the September 11, 2001 attacks, there were occasional attacks on some Muslims living in the U.S., although this was restricted to a small minority.
In a 2007 survey, 53% of American Muslims reported that it was more difficult to be a Muslim after the 9/11 attacks. Asked to name the most important problem facing them, the options named by more than ten percent of American Muslims were discrimination (19%), being viewed as a terrorist (15%), public's ignorance about Islam (13%), and stereotyping (12%). 54% believe that the U.S. government's anti-terrorism activities single out Muslims. 76% of surveyed Muslim Americans stated that they are very or somewhat concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism around the world, while 61% express a similar concern about the possibility of Islamic extremism in the United States.
On a small number of occasions Muslim women who wore distinctive hijab were harassed, causing some Muslim women to stay at home, while others temporarily abandoned the practice. In 2006, one California woman was shot dead as she walked her child to school; she was wearing a headscarf and relatives and Muslim leaders believe that the killing was religiously motivated. While 51% of American Muslims express worry that women wearing hijab will be treated poorly, 44% of American Muslim women who always wear hijab express a similar concern.
Now what? To hell with the muslimss and their constitutional rights? After all they are just a bunch of terrorists who treat their women like snow, right? And to hell with their religion either? Government should send them all to Arabia where those camel-drivers belong, right? A mosque at GZ! Those snows, right? No decency, no tact, no nothing! Someonee should teaach them a lesson, right?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 07:23 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 07:34, 06 Aug 2010.
|
I will ask again, since it seems to have been missed. If I buy a piece of land right next to a school, and erect a huge statue of (just for sake of argument) two women kissing (lets say they are 'clothed', but it is obvious it is two females)..then I would have the right by some people's argument here. I mean, it would be MY land right? Who cares that somebody else might have an issue with it...right?
What CAN be done, is often different of what SHOULD be done. At one time, in certain places it was perfectly acceptable to whip people in public. Doesn't mean it was RIGHT.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 07:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
A mosque at GZ! Those snows, right? No decency, no tact, no nothing! Someonee should teaach them a lesson, right?
Right
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 07:35 AM |
|
|
Ok people, HC does not condone violence or even suggested violence. People need to cool off NOW.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 07:45 AM |
|
|
See, Bin, that's a taste of Germany, roumndabout 1934. In 1935 Gestapo decided to register and survey all Jews - I suppose that's been long done in the US, so you are well on your way to really teach those nows a lesson, and if you do, it might be Germany 1938, the Reichskristallnacht.
Of course, in the end it's the likes with Corribus' opinion who make it possible: sure, they HAVE rights - but they shouldn't make use of them, should they. And if they still do it, well, it's all on them, right?
I mean it's like, I'm firmly against lynching those snows who do these stuff with children - but they should have the decency to bang their heads against the wall real good when they are under investigative custody. If they don't, well they shouldn't be surprised when someone else does it for them.
I mean, this is actually fairly interesting, since people always wonder, man, how was it possible? Are those Germans a special breed? Are they fundamentally evil? How could they actually...
Not so. Could have been everyone. See, how easy it is? It's just one step after another.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2010 07:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Of course, in the end it's the likes with Corribus' opinion who make it possible: sure, they HAVE rights - but they shouldn't make use of them, should they.
EXACTLY!
OMG OMG OMG, does JJ finally get it?
Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
