Park51 or the "Ground Zero Mosque"

[Prolescum]

Well it was dishonest, I mean think critically now, the meaning of that sentence changes when you take it out of the discussion and when you don't include the previous sentence. So can you be honest and admit it was a partial quote-mine or not?

No, I think that your quote (not quote-mine) is deserving of a place on FSTDT. As a mod over at your discussion thread[sup][linky][/sup] says

Your explanation just explains the fundieness. [. . .] You are proposing trading the free speech of the people for privileged speech for yourself and those you agree with. Now THAT'S some tasty fundie right there. Bravo! Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, and Glen[n] Beck would applaud your efforts to establish a precedent they can use.

It is not dishonest in the slightest.

Also, can you at least concede that this cultural center has not really been successful at establishing "inter-faith dialog", that some of the victims' relatives did not take it too kindly.

Sure if you like (I can't be bothered to check), but whether or not that is true, the blame for that can hardly be laid solely at their feet. Arguments like yours on the other hand...

What does this concession matter anyway?

Can you also concede on a point of etiquette, you shouldn't piss people off by reminding them (whether accidentally or intentionally) of the tragedy they've been through?

They being the Muslim families of the Muslim victims of 9/11?

And finally, can you also concede that 9/11 would have almost certainly never happened if not for Islam?

Will I concede that terrorists of some other ilk wouldn't have had a penchant for Hollywood-style theatricality? No, because Hollywood is all-pervasive. Seriously now, it was the culmination of a long chain of events that leads back the best part of a century so yes, the actual event would not have happened if these Muslim men had been Buddhist, or if the Russians hadn't invaded Afghanistan, or if the Saudis had rejected requests by America to host bases etc...

Again, why does this concession matter?

So can I assume that you are not willing to go through your argument step by step with us using the standards given in the video?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Sorry but I'm not going to play your game because I can see where this is going. No matter what I answer (Yes/No/Maybe) you're going to use it as a personal attack.

If you could think critically and see flaws within your own reasoning, then you would have dropped this nonsense a while ago. And when we ask you to step back and review your statements and logic, in the end the only thing you care about is not whether your reasoning is sound, but if you will be placed in a situation where you will look bad.

You already answered the question, in more or less words.

Kind of a few days past that point, aren't we?

I mean, I'm not going to look back, but has he yet admitted that the million or so Muslims living in NYC count as victims of 9/11 as much as any other NYC resident? Because that should be the start and pretty close to the end of the discussion.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Prolescum, tell me, how bad must speech be before it's no longer so dogmatically protected?

I mean there are laws against false bomb alarms, mass e-mail spam, against ordering an assassination, against nazi / antisemitic propaganda (some countries), if I recall correctly two UK Muslims were even handed sentences for promoting the execution of homosexuals and well, we all know Fred Phelps didn't make into into your country and he's on an "undesirables" list.

So where do you get these ideas that you can say absolutely anything and in any circumstance, no questions asked? The west offers a wide freedom of speech, but it's almost never absolute. I think it's less free than I want it to be in many regards.

(not quote-mine)

NO! It is a quote-mine (partial quote-mine), it makes me look like the bad guy who wants to put immigrants into internment camps or confiscate their property or something. Seriously, nobody reading just that one piece of text would think that I'm simply trying to keep out fundamentalists out of the European Union, they'd assume it's just a generic rant on immigration.

That's why it's dishonest and partial quote-mine.

Oh yeah and by the way, I don't think it's working that well, at least a few people came to my defense and said it's not fundie-level material.

Sure if you like (I can't be bothered to check), but whether or not that is true, the blame for that can hardly be laid solely at their feet. Arguments like yours on the other hand...

What does this concession matter anyway?

Well it matters, because it shows there are reasons why someone can advise against building it.

So are the few Muslims who publicly advised against it bigoted against their own religion?

Again, why does this concession matter?

Well it should matter, it just goes to show you what happens when someone bases his entire life on absurd, unproven dogmas about magical sky daddies, instead of things that are actually tangible.

I mean, I'm not going to look back, but has he yet admitted that the million or so Muslims living in NYC count as victims of 9/11 as much as any other NYC resident? Because that should be the start and pretty close to the end of the discussion.

Yes they do count as victims too. And yes, Muslims died on 9/11 (and by that I do not mean the hijackers, I mean innocent Muslims).

It's also true that there are Muslims who advised against building this center so close to Ground Zero.

It's also true that it changes nothing, many of the relatives' families are still upset over this, it's a painful reminder of what happened on 9/11. Your argument doesn't make sense, it's like saying "Well communist ideology also lead to the deaths of other communists, so it's not that bad".

Now to some extent I understand what you're about, but you seem to be completely ignoring the human side of all of this and assuming everyone is a heartless robot. Yes, it's technically irrational for a rape victim to take extra offense from rape jokes or when a photo of rapist is shown to her. But it's also stupid to condemn it, that's just how the human mind works, it makes these kind of associations. The ethical thing is to shut up with the rape jokes, I mean you certainly have a right to be an ass about it, but don't expect kindness in return.

 

[Prolescum]

Prolescum, tell me, how bad must speech be before it's no longer so dogmatically protected?

I mean there are [. . . ]

*Yawn*

Black and white thinking and a straw man. My point of view is not the exact opposite of yours, nor have I expressed the "dogmatically protected" freedom of speech you depict above.

(not quote-mine)

NO! It is a quote-mine (partial quote-mine)

There's no such thing as a partial quote-mine; it is either taken out of context (which it wasn't - your extra sentence hoists your petard for you) or it is not.

it makes me look like the bad guy who wants to put immigrants into internment camps or confiscate their property or something.

Your paranoia and self-worth are not my concern. Your rhetoric is.

Seriously, nobody reading just that one piece of text would think that I'm simply trying to keep out fundamentalists out of the European Union, they'd assume it's just a generic rant on immigration.

It is no better than a generic rant on immigration (worse in my view), it has a link to the full thread, and you even start the sentence admitting your own hypocrisy!

That's why it's dishonest and partial quote-mine.

:lol:

Oh yeah and by the way, I don't think it's working that well, at least a few people came to my defense and said it's not fundie-level material.

I have read the thread; paraphrasing is for comedians and weasels.

Sure if you like (I can't be bothered to check), but whether or not that is true, the blame for that can hardly be laid solely at their feet. Arguments like yours on the other hand...

What does this concession matter anyway?

Well it matters, because it shows there are reasons why someone can advise against building it.

So would you say that the following is "advising against it"?

I don't mean however that I think this idea is worthy of any kind of respect. I think it's a tasteless and provocative gesture, an insult to the victims of 9/11 to construct anything "Islamic" (community center, mosque, both etc.) in close proximity to Ground Zero.

So are the few Muslims who publicly advised against it bigoted against their own religion?

No, but we're talking about you. By the way, don't think I haven't noted that which you avoid responding to... Omission says just as much as your choice of words, and definitely more about your integrity.

Again, why does this concession matter?

Well it should matter, it just goes to show you what happens when someone bases his entire life on absurd, unproven dogmas about magical sky daddies, instead of things that are actually tangible.

Once again you're talking as if Islam is the sole contributing factor to 9/11 when it is simply not the case.



Now that we've broken the dirt on your risible arguments, shall we look at them one by one through the prism of critical thinking as put forth in QualiaSoup's video?

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Prolescum, tell me, how bad must speech be before it's no longer so dogmatically protected?

I mean there are [. . . ]

*Yawn*

Black and white thinking and a straw man. My point of view is not the exact opposite of yours, nor have I expressed the "dogmatically protected" freedom of speech you depict above.

Clarify...?

 

[Prolescum]

Clarify...?

As you wish.

You infer that I "dogmatically protect" freedom of speech when you know for certain that A) I am familiar with the UDHR and related legislation, and B) aware of where the limits lie (this is extremely simple reasoning).

Your position was stated as:

Of course not, my suggestion is a psychological examination for anyone applying for citizenship, deportation of those who exhibit traits that are highly incompatible with secularism and freedom.

Call it hypocritical, but we can't give freedom to people who want to use it against us, it's a form of cultural masochism and generations from now, I don't want my family to live in a Europe plagued by social unrest because we allowed immigrants who despise everything about us and refuse to live in the 21st century.

You advocated limited freedom (of speech) for particular people and later (above) assumed I must hold the polar opposite position (dogmatic protection of all speech, no matter the circumstance, no questions asked).

This is black and white thinking.

So where do you get these ideas that you can say absolutely anything and in any circumstance, no questions asked? The west offers a wide freedom of speech, but it's almost never absolute. I think it's less free than I want it to be in many regards.

This is that same straw man, as I do not hold this position (that you can say absolutely anything and in any circumstance, no questions asked).

Now, I believe there is still quite a chunk of my post to respond to. Allons-y!

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Okay, maybe I was wrong about you, but what else was I supposed to assume when you didn't seem to think the security of nation and the safety of its citizens is a good enough reason to keep certain individuals out of the country?

I'd like to know however specific examples of when free speech is not protected and when it's acceptable to you?

You can quote the law if you want, but surely you must have opinions that are not 100% in line with the law?


An analogy would be with the white supremacist working in an NGO for racial tolerance. Clearly it's an ideological incompatibility and the NGO should be allowed to deny him employment on that reason alone.

How about atheist priests? Does that make sense? Should churches be forced to hire atheists because it would be "discriminatory" otherwise? I don't think so. Try to think outside that bubble a bit.


The problem is if you keep letting extremist Islamists in Europe, they will, sooner or later (it can take 100 years it can take 200 years) be a significant part of society, they will have groups, political parties etc. and society will change for those worse, that's not exactly safeguarding human rights is it? If that's the kind of society you want to live in I wish you good luck with that. Maybe if you actually made some kind of compromise you wouldn't have people turning to "far right" parties (which in my opinion are more "extreme" and less friendly than me.)

Remember the example with FGM for instance. You know maybe it's true, maybe there really is good will in trying to stop this abuse.

But good will isn't enough because like it or not the results speak for themselves, no convictions, and it is now a problem on your own soil, for which you as a whole society are responsible for and must solve. It's no longer a third world problem, it's a British problem. That's just one example of how society changes for the worse and how moronic values are being imported into the country.

 

[Prolescum]

Okay, maybe I was wrong about you, but what else was I supposed to assume when you didn't seem to think the security of nation and the safety of its citizens is a good enough reason to keep certain individuals out of the country?

We do not simply abandon the freedoms ripped from the hands of oppressive kings and despots, cowering like children because we're scared of Fungus the Bogeyman.

Also, they are named human rights for a reason.

I have made it clear that I am a defender of freedom of speech, not Islamic fundamentalists, and have made it clear that I do not fear a minority of a minority, or a particular point of view among many other similar points. There is no reason for you to have made assumptions at all.

If it helps you, I lived in London when the IRA were blowing it up.

I'd like to know however specific examples of when free speech is not protected and when it's acceptable to you?

The limits of freedoms are where they infringe upon the freedoms of others. The finer points of hate speech et al are pretty irrelevant for this conversation. This is fucking primary school stuff, DD.

You can quote the law if you want, but surely you must have opinions that are not 100% in line with the law?

...and you can respond to the earlier post.

The problem is if you keep letting extremist Islamists in Europe, they will, sooner or later (it can take 100 years it can take 200 years) be a significant part of society, they will have groups, political parties etc. and society will change for those worse, that's not exactly safeguarding human rights is it?

If everyone gets infected by nanobots, we'll all become Borg.

This is not an argument. I've already tried to explain to you that excluding a conquering army, the UK, or indeed the EU, could never realistically turn into an Islamic state. Take the UK for example, its laws and its constitution consist of a thousand years' worth of interconnected documents, and changes require eye-boggling amounts of time to incorporate. As a quick example (it's late), Britain's freedom of speech laws began in 1689. That's not even mentioning how hilarious this concept would be to the British (you're aware of the Church of England, right?).

If that's the kind of society you want to live in I wish you good luck with that. Maybe if you actually made some kind of compromise you wouldn't have people turning to "far right" parties (which in my opinion are more "extreme" and less friendly than me.)

Compromise human rights? Those "western values" you claim to want to uphold?

You're fucking loopy if you think you're doing anything but harm to western values with this crap.

You are now free to finish responding to my slightly-more-on-topic earlier post.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

The limits of freedoms are where they infringe upon the freedoms of others. The finer points of hate speech et al are pretty irrelevant for this conversation.

Your country has listed Fred Phelps banned for this reason: "Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the United Kingdom."

aka "We don't like his views on homosexuality".

And I don't want to defend the bastard, but how exactly does it "infringe upon the freedoms of others" in a direct way?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_banned_from_entering_the_United_Kingdom

 

[Prolescum]

The limits of freedoms are where they infringe upon the freedoms of others. The finer points of hate speech et al are pretty irrelevant for this conversation.

Your country has listed Fred Phelps banned for this reason: "Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the United Kingdom."

aka "We don't like his views on homosexuality".

And I don't want to defend the bastard, but how exactly does it "infringe upon the freedoms of others" in a direct way?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_banned_from_entering_the_United_Kingdom

Okay, easily answered.

The Home Office[/url]"]The list covers people excluded from the United Kingdom for fostering extremism or hatred between October 2008 and March 2009.

It follows the Home Secretary's introduction of new measures against such individuals last year, including creating a presumption in favour of exclusion in respect of all those who have engaged in spreading hate.

To make that list you have to be "fostering extremism or hatred", criteria which is further clarified in legislation.

The government must've been hard pressed finding any sort of engaging in extremist views fostering hatred for homosexuals from any of the Phelps family, owners of godhatesfags.com.

Under the unacceptable behaviour policy, the Home Secretary may exclude from the UK any non-British citizen, whether in the UK or abroad, who uses any means or medium including:

• writing, producing, publishing or distributing material
  public speaking including preaching
  running a website or
  using a position of responsibility such as teacher, community or youth leader

To express views which:

• foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs
  seek to provoke others to terrorist acts
  foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts or
  foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.

If you don't know the meaning of foster in this context, I suggest a dictionary followed by a response to my earlier on-topic post[sup][link-me-do][/sup].

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Meaning of "foster"? Errr... promote?

"fostering extremism or hatred"

So what do you call someone who promotes the imposition of Sharia law? I would call it fostering extremism or hatred.

Okay, I'll be more generous and just simplify it to "fostering extremism".


I think you might want to consider expanding that list... Just a thought.

 

[Prolescum]

Meaning of "foster"? Errr... promote?

"fostering extremism or hatred"

So what do you call someone who promotes the imposition of Sharia law? I would call it fostering extremism or hatred.
Okay, I'll be more generous and just simplify it to "fostering extremism".

It doesn't make your point any less moot. Now, the earlier post[sup][link-ahoy][/sup], or should I just call you out as a troll?

[centre]

[/centre]

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Taking shit out of context are we?

I put that up just to piss off VyckRo. Won't go into details now. My views here are genuine.

Basically he called me a "voiceless faceless troll" because I don't appear in any video and I thought that sounded pretty cool, something out of Cthulu mythos or something.

 

[Prolescum]

Out of context? It's the title of your YouTube channel. There was no other context available to remove it from. If you're dumb enough to label yourself that way and not mean it, there is no one to blame but yourself :lol:

Your actions here certainly give one the impression of a troll, although the comical butthurt on FSTDT gives you bonus "genuinely believes the ridiculous crap he espouses" points.

As you are no doubt aware, there is another post awaiting your attention[sup][linkisfarne][/sup].

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Just a quick warning that I haven't read the entire thread. I read the first two pages and then skipped to the end 'cause I was curious to see how the conversation progressed and then I saw this post...

I mean, I'm not going to look back, but has he yet admitted that the million or so Muslims living in NYC count as victims of 9/11 as much as any other NYC resident? Because that should be the start and pretty close to the end of the discussion.

Yes they do count as victims too. And yes, Muslims died on 9/11 (and by that I do not mean the hijackers, I mean innocent Muslims).

It's also true that there are Muslims who advised against building this center so close to Ground Zero.

I saw you bring this point up before but I don't see why you're bringing it up now. At the beginning of this thread, you probably brought this point up to demonstrate how you're not a "bigot" because your opinion is in agreement with some Muslims who are surely not bigoted against their own religion. Okay but what point are you trying to make now with this?

What about the non-Muslims living in that area who support its construction? By your reasoning, we can now conclude that Park 51's construction shouldn't be offensive because there are people who you think would be offended by it but are actually quite okay with it...

It's also true that it changes nothing, many of the relatives' families are still upset over this, it's a painful reminder of what happened on 9/11. Your argument doesn't make sense, it's like saying "Well communist ideology also lead to the deaths of other communists, so it's not that bad".

Now to some extent I understand what you're about, but you seem to be completely ignoring the human side of all of this and assuming everyone is a heartless robot. Yes, it's technically irrational for a rape victim to take extra offense from rape jokes or when a photo of rapist is shown to her. But it's also stupid to condemn it, that's just how the human mind works, it makes these kind of associations. The ethical thing is to shut up with the rape jokes, I mean you certainly have a right to be an ass about it, but don't expect kindness in return.

Some people are going to be offended by Park 51's construction and I'm sure everyone knows that, including the people building it! You also have Muslims living in that area who were the victims of this tragically devastating attack. As a Muslim, are you going to forgo supporting this community in their time of need because some people are going to be offended by it?

Just out of wild curiosity, when do you feel would be "ethical" to build Park 51 where it stands?

The undue prejudice against Islam is also "a painful reminder of what happened on 9/11..."




I say "undue" because I'm actually quite prejudiced against Islam myself since it's an utterly stupid religion... but aren't they all?

 

[RedYellow]

Wouldn't America come out looking like the bigger man if it could be forgiving enough to let them build a mosque? I mean this whole reactionary way of being 'offended' just perpetuates the animosity. Maybe, just maybe, this way Al Queda would just end up look like bigger dicks by attacking a country that doesn't show any paranoia against Islam?

Nah I guess we should just keep spinning the fear wheel and convincing ourselves that it's important to be offended by things that wouldnt really matter if we grew up......

 

[bluejatheist]

Wouldn't America come out looking like the bigger man if it could be forgiving enough to let them build a mosque? I mean this whole reactionary way of being 'offended' just perpetuates the animosity. Maybe, just maybe, this way Al Queda would just end up look like bigger dicks by attacking a country that doesn't show any paranoia against Islam?

Nah I guess we should just keep spinning the fear wheel and convincing ourselves that it's important to be offended by things that wouldnt really matter if we grew up......

Muslims have nothing to be forgiven for, as has been repeated over and over in this thread, they aren't responsible for the actions of a radical militant minority of Islam. Also the reasons for the animosity of al Qaeda and other groups is much, much, much more than a simple matter of being tolerant of a mosque. Al Qaeda already look like dicks for murdering innocents around the world, the countries and groups that oppose them already do so, they don't need further motivation. The only people supporting them are themselves radicalized or have some other irrational motivation. The only action that needs to be taken by the U.S. Government is none at all, as the Community Center (Not Mosque) is a lawful project run by citizens.

 

[RedYellow]

I should clarify that I meant forgiveness to mean the general attitude, because yes many Americans do blame all of Islam. Obviously I don't lump them together.

Also the reasons for the animosity of al Qaeda and other groups is much, much, much more than a simple matter of being tolerant of a mosque. Al Qaeda already look like dicks for murdering innocents around the world, the countries and groups that oppose them already do so, they don't need further motivation.

So what? Would it be a bad thing if they looked like a little bit bigger dicks? All I'm saying is that America needs to demonstrate more maturity about it. So I'm basically agreeing with you. I think it's just bullshit manufactured controversy that shows Americans to be overly paranoid and prejudiced.

 

[bluejatheist]

I should clarify that I meant forgiveness to mean the general attitude, because yes many Americans do blame all of Islam. Obviously I don't lump them together.

This still implies some sort of fault on part of the muslims, I know what you mean but I think 'forgiveness' is just not the right word for it.

So what? Would it be a bad thing if they looked like a little bit bigger dicks? All I'm saying is that America needs to demonstrate more maturity about it. So I'm basically agreeing with you. I think it's just bullshit manufactured controversy that shows Americans to be overly paranoid and prejudiced.

It wouldn't make a difference is what I mean. It might make people less irritated with Americans, but not by much. I'd say its more a minority of Americans that are paranoid. I see muslims, particularly muslim women here in the U.S. wearing their headscarf, they might get a curious glance but they go through places like banks, amusement parks and other areas with no different treatment from security or anyone else. Of course this is different depending on where you go, but I'd say the islamiphobia is mostly a fictional media phenomena. I also think most people outside of the country can realize not to judge Americans by how the media behaves, but maybe that's idealistic of me.

 

[RedYellow]

I think you're right about the use of the word forgiveness, I chose it in emotional haste I suppose.

I'm an American, and it seems unreal to me, the kind of stuff that gets on the news or the issues we're still dealing with. (Gay marriage? Evolution in schools? Really??) You're absolutely right though, I agree that the majority of it is media-generated hype.