Obama supports "Ground Zero Mosque" (of course he does)

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Sigh.

As long as you cannot show wrong the reason and sane argument in the statement in my sig, it is impossible for me to take you serious, and I have nothing more to say to you on this. Either you get it, or you do not get it.

And you still haven't shown how you're going to accomplish this tightrope walk without destroying everything you claim to be protecting.

You want to take something I said in the old 'Gay Marriage' thread - "You either have freedom or you don't", and claim I feel that way about everything. Can you tell me how many times I've said things like "I go into every discussion assuming I might be wrong", "I don't know anything", "Nothing is ever black and white" and "Nothing is absolute"? No, you pick that one out of a crowd just so you could attack one statement.

The fact is that everything needs a starting point. When I say something like "All taxation is evil", it's a starting point, not a final answer. Same with my comment on freedom. How many times have I said in this discussion that I recognize that everything has limitations, including freedom? Yet you keep coming back to the same lecture - that I don't understand, and need you to save me.

I know that the radical Islamists are dangerous. Here in America we lock up people for what they do, not for what they say.

You still haven't explained why I shouldn't be frightened of you. You still haven't explained why they shouldn't be allowed to build a building. You still haven't explained why I shouldn't see you as the enemy of freedom just as much as they are. Mostly what you have done is preach.

Sigh loudly all you want. You like to lecture, you like to be right, and you like to talk down to people, and you like to tell my how stupid I am over one thing I said while ignoring everything else I've ever said as well.

[yubba]

Where's Murphysville ? didn't catch the state apparently they don't want one built there either. http://www.13wmaz.com/news/local/sto...8301&catid=175

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by yubba

Where's Murphysville ? didn't catch the state apparently they don't want one built there either. http://www.13wmaz.com/news/local/sto...8301&catid=175

thats sad. Thats something that would happen in Iran if you tried to build a church. This is the U.S.A where we should be better than that.

[razark]

Originally Posted by yubba

Where's Murphysville ? didn't catch the state apparently they don't want one built there either. http://www.13wmaz.com/news/local/sto...8301&catid=175

It's in Tennessee. The site of the new mosque is about a mile and a half from the site of a mosque that has existed for decades...

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And you still haven't shown how you're going to accomplish this tightrope walk without destroying everything you claim to be protecting.

By setting limited objectives. Despite the sometimes slippery slope nature of this, Western society play this "tightrope walk" all the time. For example, in Germany, public denial of the Holocaust is IIRC a crime. That will actually of course be a crimping of freedom of speech. But it doesn't necessarily destroy the rest of free speech in Germany.

I know that the radical Islamists are dangerous. Here in America we lock up people for what they do, not for what they say.

Let me try an analogy. I'm not too familiar with the finer points of American law, but I suppose that considering all the freedom of speech and religion provisions, it would be legal for a certain major TV-station to allocate say 4-hours of prime time to radical Islam propaganda. Of course, it'll be just as legal not to allot them the time.

Now, given that the above is indeed legal, do you think that this is all hunky-dory?

IMO, it is one thing to not arrest a radical, be it a Islamist, Creationist, Communist or whatever as soon as he opens his big mouth. But a society can rightly choose not to give them the bright part of day, to allocate them less than prime-cuts of land, to make them put their propaganda in the relative recess of the Internet rather than on national TV, without necessarily harming freedom of speech.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

By setting limited objectives. Despite the sometimes slippery slope nature of this, Western society play this "tightrope walk" all the time. For example, in Germany, public denial of the Holocaust is IIRC a crime. That will actually of course be a crimping of freedom of speech. But it doesn't necessarily destroy the rest of free speech in Germany.

I believe that Germany is far over the line in making things like that a crime. To me it shows the same exact lock-step mindset that created those things in the first place.

But that's just my opinion, and since I don't live there it's none of my business.

Let me try an analogy. I'm not too familiar with the finer points of American law, but I suppose that considering all the freedom of speech and religion provisions, it would be legal for a certain major TV-station to allocate say 4-hours of prime time to radical Islam propaganda. Of course, it'll be just as legal not to allot them the time.

Now, given that the above is indeed legal, do you think that this is all hunky-dory?

Absolutely. Just as the courts approved right of modern Neo-Nazis to hold a rally in a predominately Jewish neighborhood, this would engender contoversy and open discussion. And it would ruin the station's reputation, which is why none of them would ever do it in the first place.

IMO, it is one thing to not arrest a radical, be it a Islamist, Creationist, Communist or whatever as soon as he opens his big mouth. But a society can rightly choose not to give them the bright part of day, to allocate them less than prime-cuts of land, to make them put their propaganda in the relative recess of the Internet rather than on national TV, without necessarily harming freedom of speech.

And in my opinion it's just the opposite. Society can choose not to watch, but if a station is stupid enough to air somebody's racist crap, that's their problem. And it will be a problem, because most people aren't as stupid as some like to think.

[tater]

Freedom of (political) speech in the US is absolute as long as you are not suborning a crime. It's the 1st Amendment. Ditto religion, though the "establishment clause" can certainly be read to prevent government sponsorship of religion—since personal belief is a "Natural Right" and the government can't grant you something you already have. I find the german laws which ban some speech abhorrent. I understand the context, but the end result is to treat citizens like children—which is always the wrong answer, IMHO. I suppose it is easier to accept in societies that are fine with the State as mommy and daddy. Myself, I'll willing to takes some lumps in the name of liberty. If that means listening to idiots I disagree with, so be it.

This puts the US in a pickle vs Islam. I won't even say "radical" Islam, because even so-called "moderate" Islam is "radical" by Western standards. Look at the "moderate" cleric in question's remarks (translated from Arabic media, not the BS he throws at the US press) regarding apostasy, etc. What % of Christian churches would be considered "radical" if their doctrine included death for leaving the church, or publicly denouncing it's beliefs? Right, 100% would be.

The best solution, IMHO, is to have a strict separation. Dump all special treatment of religion. Tax them. If they engage in activity that is dangerous for national security, shut them down. Note that many religious people in the US would happily have the government do this to "cults"—a cult being some silly belief system that is not YOUR silly belief system as far as I can tell.

Hold all religions to the same standard. Christians are hated (by some) as fundamentalists for Biblical literalism. The same people should equally hate any muslim sects that hold the same literalist beliefs. Instead, here, we routinely see people that hate Christians, defending a far worse fundamentalism. Boggles the mind, frankly.

We have to make sure we don't defend enemies of enlightened, democratic pluralism in the name of political correctness (which is what the left here bends over backwards to do—and the right often times, too, look at W's talk about Islam being "hijacked"—what rubbish, it was Islam being itself).

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by tater

I won't even say "radical" Islam, because even so-called "moderate" Islam is "radical" by Western standards. Look at the "moderate" cleric in question's remarks (translated from Arabic media, not the BS he throws at the US press) regarding apostasy, etc.

It is a radical, a conqueror's ideology. Muslims indeed obeying it's dogma and rules, necessarily must be radicals. Muslims refusing to be that, thus are jus that: Muslims disobedient to (and not representative for) the dogma. Islam itself is as radical as the term "radical" can mean.

I also point out that many muslims are offended by this Western deamnd to differ between radical and moderate Islam. On eof the ost prominent voices who have very angrily protested aginst this wetsern idiocy, is Turkey'S pr9me momsiter Erdoghan, who said in real word that it is an offence that the Wesat constantly refers to a distinction between moderate and radical Isalam. He insisted that it is an offence, and that there is and always have been just one islam.

Of curse, the usual band of western idiots and braindead suicide candidates did not consider one minute the possibulity that he might be right and that he might know it better than them. they know so much better what Islam is, these hyperintellectual supermen.

Well, that is what defines an idiot, amongst other criterions: he never listens, he is fully immune to learning, and he always thinks he knows it better.

The West knows better what Islam is than Islam knows itself. Yeah. Sure.

The West is a mental asylum where doctors and patients are one and the same.

[mookiemookie]

Reminds me of people around here:

SALINA, KS—Local man Scott Gentries told reporters Wednesday that his deliberately limited grasp of Islamic history and culture was still more than sufficient to shape his views of the entire Muslim world.

...

"I almost gave in and listened to that guy defend Islam with words I didn't want to hear," Gentries said. "But then I remembered how much easier it is to live in a world of black-and-white in which I can assign the label of 'other' to someone and use him as a vessel for all my fears and insecurities."

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man...ow-abou,17990/

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Reminds me of people around here:



http://www.theonion.com/articles/man...ow-abou,17990/

So we are to infer that this man is representative to all those that are in opposition to this location?

Well, that is what defines an idiot, amongst other criterions: he never listens, he is fully immune to learning, and he always thinks he knows it better.

A description of Skybird in a nutshell.

And you still haven't shown how you're going to accomplish this tightrope walk without destroying everything you claim to be protecting.

You simply missed the post, Sky explained it all with the help from his bestest buddy popper who read your questions.
Some might say that the post was never there and doesn't exist, but those are just the silly people who can't see things the same as Sky does, after all only a super intellectual is able to undestand like Sky does as he reads lot, he proves this by many amazing feats....like reciting laws thatnormal mere mortals think don't exist , magic treaties that ordinaryy people believe were never written and events and happenings worldwide that all them regular folk just have no knowledge of because they foolishly believe Sky is just making it up again.

[Cohaagen]

The eloquence - and if I'm being frank, catchiness - of this man's masterwork has persuaded me, at least.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Of curse, the usual band of western idiots

That's sure going to win people to your side.

hyperintellectual supermen.

Well, that is what defines an idiot, amongst other criterions: he never listens, he is fully immune to learning, and he always thinks he knows it better.

But those are exactly the terms I would use to describe you. See the problem?

It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Old and trite saying, but true. And you're still talking down to everybody.

Another skipe88 alert.

"Everyone who against Ground zero mosque is a secret Israeli agent who never been in Germany ." Over and out

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I believe that Germany is far over the line in making things like that a crime. To me it shows the same exact lock-step mindset that created those things in the first place.

But that's just my opinion, and since I don't live there it's none of my business.

I'll say you are missing the point. The point is that:
1) Even nominally free-speech countries often have limitations already imposed.
2) While such limitations may be debated on their merits, the historical evidence suggests that limited restrictions do not necessarily landslide into Gestapo II.

Absolutely. Just as the courts approved right of modern Neo-Nazis to hold a rally in a predominately Jewish neighborhood, this would engender contoversy and open discussion. And it would ruin the station's reputation, which is why none of them would ever do it in the first place.

If we grant that a station will perform the scenario, then there would be a significant viewership making it worthwhile. And after a few years, you'll be used to the fact a major TV station is running 4-hours of radical Islam a day, which opens the path for them to be running it six hours a day, then 8, and so on.

And in my opinion it's just the opposite. Society can choose not to watch, but if a station is stupid enough to air somebody's racist crap, that's their problem. And it will be a problem, because most people aren't as stupid as some like to think.

Having a lot of faith in people, are you? But if you have that much faith, certainly it can be possible to block Islam without necessarily leading to a cascade.

I'll say that people are creatures of habit, and while there may be significant numbers that groan at first, if it is kept up eventually they'll adapt, thus freeing the path for another advance.

You do have to remember just a hundred fifty years ago, not particularly immoral humans thought having slaves was a-OK.
====
As a rule, the slippery slope is a fallacy, mostly because its proponent would tend to skip over or understate counterbalancing forces which will stop the "ball" before it reaches an dangerous position.

However, IMO there is an exception case, and that's when one side continuously feels compelled to lift their counterforce away from the balance. In such a case, the slippery slope has the potential to become fact.

That, IMO the essence of Skybird's position (and if I have indeed determined his position through his Walls of Text approximately correctly, I am sympathetic to it), and that, I'll say is why Skybird's position is ultimately less dangerous than Islam. The average Westerner is indoctrinated from birth to be extremely careful about freedom restriction (as we can see here), and though the potential may be reduced as Skybird's proposals open a passage, there will still probably be a fair counter-force left to stop further advance. The average Westerner is indoctrinated from birth to not feel the same away about Islam (and in fact most other religions for the matter no matter what ugliness may be in their Holy Scripts), so there is only a low reserve counter-force, which leaves us vulnerable to Islam.

So, what to do about it? AFAIK It is the Constitution of Western countries to either "grant" the right to free speech and religion, or "guarantee" it. However, nobody mandates that every speech and every religion must be equally well supported by society. Some views go on TV in front of 200 million citizens while others are on a fringe Internet site or a local pamphlet that only a few would have real access to. And I'm certain it won't do Western countries great harm to make Islam closer to the latter.