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

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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.



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.



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.

Well done, KSII. You've decided that pragmatism is the best approach to the situation.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Still hiding from the question, eh?

When the free in an act of defending that freedom, limits the other's option to destroy freedom, than that is no tyranny, but simply: self-defence.Something nthat to claim if being attcked is the most natural thing in the world. Your question - which came as your only reaction to my question that was going first - as well as your whole argument, thus is Quatsch. Blödsinn. Stuß. Dummes Zeug.

Sorry for the harsh words, but it cannot be said any different. To me, your whole thinking on the issue is nuts, and ridden with destructive self-contradiction. Totally nuts, self-contradicting, and suicidal. So go on and crucify yourself over your demands for this idea of yours. Reality will roll over you anyway. And it will be defined by your enemy, because he is stronger, more patient and more determined than you are willing to defend yourself. Islam has already successfully established it's prerogative of interpretation (=Deutungshoheit )in the public debate.

The only reason why I even care is becasue with your fall you seal the doom of all us others as well.

When the free in an act of defending that freedom, limits the other's option to destroy freedom, than that is no tyranny

Straight from My struggle, though of course uncle adolf was on about jews and communists decadent politicians plus the enemy within who foolishly facilitate them wheras Sky is on about muslims the left the decadent politicians and the enemy within who foolishly accomodate them.

I'll say is why Skybird's position is ultimately less dangerous than Islam.

But the thing is that the threat he is fighting isn't that real so he is proposing rather dangerous solutions to a frightening danger that is not that real.
His paranoia and phobia has convinced him of the need for radical action to fight off threats that he largely has to invent.
That is what sets his seemingly "balanced and reasoned" step towards tyranny such a frightening prospect and the fact that he makes up so much rubbish and insists its real when it is easily disproved makes it even more of a frightening prospect.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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.

The use of spreading propaganda is to influence the other, and to turn him around. And if it is done in the underhanded and lying waylike islam sells itself in the West, then it is a highly effective way that enables them to infiltrate education, legislation, policy forming, and finally claiming the authority to define public opinion (prerogative of interpretation)- which you can see in the fact that today criticism of Islam automatically qualifies as hate speech and racism, and as islamic speakers and officials state: as crimes against mankind. If islam is not given the freedom to seek total dominance and rulership, that is "tyranny" and a perverting of western values, so they claim. Sounds familiar, Steve? You are a formidable Mitläufer of their intentions, opening them their breaches and ways. They turn our own ideals, our values on which we base, our own laws against us - i order to destroy us. And they are successful, as to be seen in the example of the Islamophilia of the EU, the UN, the islamisation of public opinion, and Steve'S thinking that standing up against this is "tyranny".

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.

TV quality has constantly detoriated since 20 years and more. It becomes more and more stupid. So, that faith in the reaosnability of the people is highly unjustified, I would say, because the relation between media entertainment and audience is that of mutual feedback. People get kicked into dumbness by showing them stupid programs (or manipulative ones: see news), and stupid programs become more stupid becasue people want it. "Racist crap", as Steve puts it, can be highly successful - that's why it is systemtically spilled out on the streets. The Nazis in Germany are very successful in recuriting new, young people, their numbers are climbing and climbing. Even more since they started to dress themselves into burgeois appearance, hiding their Nazism behind conservatism and seriousness. The modern Nazis doe snot show up in army jackets and black boots, but in ordinary business suits. they copied the infiltration tactics of psycho-sects and abusive slaveorganisations like Scientology. Islam acts in this deceptive way since much longer. In the other thread I linked to an essay on the organsiation behind the Cordoba House - and showed the difference between the sweetsweet words they pour into American ears, and the preaching of conquest and jihad and subjugation of america that they, the very same people, preach on the other side of the planet in support of the GZ mosque. Irritating, not anyone cared for it, nobody mentioned it, nobody saw a motivation of trying to counter it - although I referred to it five times, in links and even quoting the full text, everybody ignored it. So, having faith in the reasonability of people? Sorry, not with me. I have a bit of faith in the reasonability of some people. and these people form the group that is loosing the battle for defining the public opinion-climate. Because they disturb the illusion of this elusive peace that all is okay and nothing must be done and we can keep on hanging around lazy and comfortably. Defending freedom? "What - me...?"

Reason and argument alone have no voice in this insane world anymore. The noise made from the yelling of the others is too loud. Sometimes I think one should let it all go to hell. It's just that there are two young, sweet ladies of age 8 and 5, whose future worries and frightens me. The older one is at school, and I see how the poltical correct appeasement of Isamic demands already is being pumnped into her brain. Of course she is too young to question it, and when she is older she is so used to it and knows it not any different so that it is unlikely that she will start to ask questions by herself. Seeing it that way sometimes puts me into a murderous angry mood. there are not even that many muslims at her school, so WTF did she - as a non-Muslim - already need to obey rules of Halal food during school party in spring this year...??? So far I only read about such things in Britain. It seems the plague has spread further East.

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.

Indeed, and in the case of Islam in the West we do not talk about intention, but proven example, action that is taken and maintained since years and decades. The question is neither "if..." nor "when" but only: "for how long anymore?" answer is this: as long as it takes them to copmplete theirt taks, or as long as it takes us to stand up in strength and make them stop and go away, setting up as much pressure as is needed to stop islam, and push it back to the standards every other culture and religion in our home culture has to accept and obey.

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.

Indeed. I again refer to the german constitution that both declares an ammount of freedom that makes germany one of the freest societies in the world - but it also specifies the case when somebody can lose these freedom guarantees - and that is when he sues them to try overwhelming the constitutional order or destroy right these freedoms. If that is what makes germany a tyranny or dictaorship, then that means the necessary end of communicating, because people do not speak the same language then.

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.

Once again I remind of this: that Western constitutions tend to base on the separation of religion and politics, and that this is the basis on which they guarantee or grant the right of free speech and free religion. A constitution that does not also specify that these guarantees are void and invalid for everybody who does not fully submit to this principle and thus tries to push policies under the protection of free religion, thus making his political goals untouchable to opposition and criticism, is highly vulnerable to such an enemy, and cannot defend itself against him: it gets beaten by its own rules. Like Steve does, it opens the enemy the lane to turn right this constitution against itself, eroding it from inside, and destroy the order of the state that bases on it.

And that is what is happening: first in Europe, and now also in America. Islam neither knows nor accepts nor cares for the separation of relgion and poltics. In Islam, politics, socialness (?), privateness and religion all are one and the same. we have no equivalent for this model in Western culture as far as I know, not even the uniformity of totalitarian regimes like fascism.

whcih you can see in the fact that today criticism of Islam automatically qualifies as hate speech and racism

Wow he can't help himself , making up more rubbish and having the front to call it "fact"

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I've never said I have answers, or even ideas. In case you missed it, I hate this thing as much as anyone. All I've ever done is defend the legal right to build a building. If the law turns around and denies them that right, I'll probably defend the law in that case as well.

I fight enemies of freedom wherever I find them. Are you one?

So you don`t have an answer but you claim that others hiding from a question. Or you just call it "tyranny".
Well maybe you can tell me why when people suggest to build a mosque somewhere else (not near ground zero) your politician disagree? I know the answer and you know the answer, because it will lose it main goal, spit on faces of the dead. So what next comrade? We will also have a program building large Hitler statue in the middle of Auschwitz? Many individuals here will agree with that probably.

The last thing i want to mention is your claim that you are fighting for freedom. Ok fighter


have any suggestions ?

[Castout]

Don't worry it just needs someone to open a stripper club next to it or even yet a block away, with Marketing such Free Friday for Muslims.


Oh come on don't be offended I was just kidding.

[SteamWake]

The man behind the Mosque...

Originally Posted by CBS

Developer Of Community Center Has Lengthy Record, With Numerous Arrests Dating Back To 1990

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/08/...d-zero-mosque/

[AVGWarhawk]

He has been very busy.

[tater]

El-Gamal also owes over $227,000 in unpaid real estate taxes and a spokesman for the Department of Finance said interest will be added for each and every day its unpaid

They'll give a permit to people who owe back taxes? Yeesh.

I suppose he could get an Obama cabinet position, though, tax evasion seems to be a prerequisite.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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.

1) True. We don't shout "Fire" in a crowded theater and we don't threaten the lives of public officials. I've never said otherwise.

2) No, not necessarily, but it is possible, and needs to be watched. My comments to Skybird are based less on historical statistics than on his projected attitude, which to me seems to be that he will save us from the bad guys by restricting them for what they say, and he offers no guarantee that I won't be next.

So what point exactly am I missing?

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 your point is? That's the price we accept when we guarantee free speech. We accepted the possibility when we allowed the Nazis to march in Skokie. We accept it every time someone burns an American flag in the streets.

Personally I think that is what makes America different from anyplace else in the world. It's what made us what we are today, and the only thing that keeps us from monarchy and dictatorship.

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.

Possibly, but I don't see that it has worked in the past.

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.

Possibly, but I also see that as true of Skybird's way.

You do have to remember just a hundred fifty years ago, not particularly immoral humans thought having slaves was a-OK.

True, and we created laws to protect those slaves. And to protect everyone else. And that means everyone.

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.

You're absolutely right. Now tell that to Herr Niemöller.

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.

And I see Skybird's arguments in exactly that light.

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.

That may well be true, but in spite of repeated requests from me he has declined to defend his position or offer any guarantees that that is not exactly where his ideas will end up. Instead he has repeatedly told me that my beliefs are stupid and suicidal, and that if I don't accept his pronouncements without question then I am my own worst enemy.

I don't have any problems with his ideas, though I do disagree somewhat. My problem is with his arrogant proclamations of my ignorance and stupidity.

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.

But I'm not the average Westerner. I've been a solid Law-And-Order type, and I've been a borderline Anarchist. I've been a devout Liberal and a devout Conservative. I've been a devout Christian and a devout Atheist.

All of which has left me with the realization that I don't really know anything, and a firm distrust of anyone who claims that they do. It's the absolutist of any stripe who garners my enmity, because the person who believes something absolutely will do anything, and I mean anything, to defend his belief.

That includes Islam, and includes (for me, anyway) people who devoutly hate Islam. Both, to me, are equally dangerous.

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.

America does mandate exactly that. We come from a background of Official State Religions, and that is exactly what the First Amendment to our Constitution means. We do not interfere with religious teachings or practices (as long as they don't violate any other guaranteed rights, such as human sacrifice), and they are not allowed to interfere with the Government. Something as dangerous as Islam indeed needs to be watched, but the same laws apply to everyone, and ultimately this particular discussion is about nothing more than whether they should be allowed to build a mosque in a place they have legally purchased. We don't legislate morality here, and that includes declining building permits because we are offended by the reasons or the locations.

Denying that is indeed a 'slippery slope'. Who do you exempt next?

[Cohaagen]

Originally Posted by Dimitrius07

have any suggestions ?

Originally Posted by Cohaagen

Well thats number two. And no suggestion. Instead all we get is a typical double talk about human rights and Osama ben Laden. Two things don`t work together, whatever you like it or not .

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

So what point exactly am I missing?

1) Your previous response, which was concentrated on attacking the particular example, did not seem to grasp the point. Rather than debate fine points, I'm glad we can confirm we are roughly on the same page 'cept that bit about Skybird, which I'll consolidate below.

And your point is? That's the price we accept when we guarantee free speech. We accepted the possibility when we allowed the Nazis to march in Skokie. We accept it every time someone burns an American flag in the streets.

2) I'll actually argue that we do not have to accept all these prices while guaranteeing free speech.

Possibly, but I don't see that it has worked in the past.

3) First half of answer: The fact that you have agreed in the 1st section that we have already restricted freedom of speech in some areas, and that there is the possibility of doing so w/o necessarily going into the drink, I'll consider this point contradicted by yourself.

Possibly, but I also see that as true of Skybird's way.

4) Less so than yours, for reasons I've already gone over in the previous post.

True, and we created laws to protect those slaves. And to protect everyone else. And that means everyone.

5) That's the 2nd half of the answer to Section 3. The fact that we can, from a very adverse position relative to today advance towards freedom should provide some counterpotential in countering "Skybird's threat".

You're absolutely right. Now tell that to Herr Niemöller.

6) Skybird already read the message. That leaves you.

And I see Skybird's arguments in exactly that light.

7) And I'll argue you shouldn't.

That may well be true, but in spite of repeated requests from me he has declined to defend his position or offer any guarantees that that is not exactly where his ideas will end up.

I'm not Skybird, but here are my speculations for what they are worth:

He's too well-read in history to not be aware of the danger. He's also too intellectually honest to, in a debate which is basically two people pitching their respective slippery slopes to ignore the fallacy (and ineffectiveness) of declaring his own concerns as a near certainty while dismissing his opponent's with blithe, blind-faith one-liners like:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

...because most people aren't as stupid as some like to think.

when the very value of this debate arguably rests on "most people" being stupid - otherwise, either solution will be exercised with intelligence and the correct balance of forces and neither lead to authoritarianism nor the Rule of Sharia.

Further, he's a veteran enough debater to recognize that you are unfairly trying to put the burden of proof entirely on his side and not play your game.

Given this, one of his best Course of Action to substitute for the obvious impossibility of a 100% guarantee is to improve the substantiation of the Islamic threat (this presumably is the reason for all those Walls of Text)

IMO, the lack of explicit answer is also one of the best honest answers to your request for a guarantee. Skybird is also indoctrinated in the Western school of freedom, and there are realistic limits to how far he can deviate to one side. The lack of answer actually is a sign that he is bound by those counterforces. While those counterforces exist, it is unlikely he would go too far. So relax.

Instead he has repeatedly told me that my beliefs are stupid and suicidal, and that if I don't accept his pronouncements without question then I am my own worst enemy.

I don't have any problems with his ideas, though I do disagree somewhat. My problem is with his arrogant proclamations of my ignorance and stupidity.

The way I see it, if you start from his positions and your pronouncements, that you are suicidal and stupid is a given conclusion. Watch this analogy:

Skybird's premises (Estimate of Situation):

1. Islam's strategic objective is the alteration of the world to its values [stated by some, and reasonable; this is probably universal objective among ideologies], and those values are entirely incompatible with Western concepts of freedom.
2. Steve's and Skybird's (and the West's) strategic objective is (for the West, "should be") to defend that freedom [all basically state this].
3. Islam is moving actively, and knows it is at an adverse correlation of force versus the West, so will in the main choose tactics that avoid going head-to-head with the West [reasonable to assume the enemy actually has a brain] - instead choosing infiltration type tactics.
4. Our current Western values (rear) provide ample room for such infiltration [we will not be having this discussion if that were not the case]. Infiltration reduces the stability of the rear.
5. While a real military line of defense has absolute references and its troops will at least know when forced into a retreat, the front edge of defending freedom is amorphous and actually moves forward and back without being aware of it based on the stability of the rear (read: When too much Islam infiltrates the line can potentially move back to behind the strategic objective, often without anyone even noticing). [Our history suggests this to be a characteristic of our "moral lines of 'warfare'"].
6. Due to the composition of the rear and line, the infiltration can't even be stopped without harming the defense's stability. The stronger the infiltration stopped, the more it'll hurt. All else being even, "Counterattack" hurts more than "stop" (extra "penalty" is proportional to "violence" of counterattack).
   1. If one of the infiltrating columns prematurely attack, the attacking column may be stopped or counterattacked with reduced loss of stability, all other factors being even - however, penalties for stopping or counterattacking other columns remain fundamentally unchanged.
      1. The above means a general counterattack might realistically occur without fatal consequences for stability only if a vast number of infiltrating enemy columns simultaneously go to attack - if the defense stability hadn't been too weakened by the infiltrations by then.

[Item 6 is also substantiated by human history, and while Skybird doesn't put explicit stress on it, but IMO his actions in debate suggest he's perfectly aware of its presence and takes it into account in his calculation.]

Given the above estimate of the situation, Skybird assesses the risk of 6 as acceptable and less than the dangers of 4&5, and decides to move quickly to block the penetrations followed by gentle squeeze out actions (rapid blocking action = minimal movement and cost). Of course, if some of the Islamist infiltrators genuinely change sides when pressed, all the better though he doesn't think many will.

Now he sees Steve. Steve claims to not object to Skybird's general estimate (though he may vary on finer points of magnitude and weighting assessment), and even says he has the same objective, but he refuses to move his troops, apparently due solely to his fear of Item 6. He even tries to stop Skybird from moving, asking him to guarantee Item 6 will never occur, a clearly impossible task. Any attempt to point out the dangers of Item 4-5 is met with more questions about Item 6, almost as if Item 6 is the sole element of the situation, rather than just one part of it.

Instead, he will keep observing (read: do nothing) and hope Islam will give him a victory on a silver platter by deploying prematurely, allowing him to exterminate them on the cheap. Of course, due to Item 4&5, Islam may not have to deploy at all, and can certainly choose its time.

What adjectives do you recommend for Steve?

But I'm not the average Westerner. I've been a solid Law-And-Order type, and I've been a borderline Anarchist. I've been a devout Liberal and a devout Conservative. I've been a devout Christian and a devout Atheist.

The average Westerner probably has at least one trait that deviates from the average Westerner. However, since you are obviously more fearful of affecting freedom's stability than the threat of Islam, that makes you an average Westerner on this matter.

By the way, you do realize that "devout" is actually oxymoronic with "atheist", do you?

because the person who believes something absolutely will do anything, and I mean anything, to defend his belief.

That includes Islam, and includes (for me, anyway) people who devoutly hate Islam. Both, to me, are equally dangerous.

First, you are not distinguishing here between a "belief", which is based mostly on thin-air, and a conclusion founded on knowledge. Given that Skybird apparently has spent substantial time studying Islam, his may be a conclusion more than a belief.

I'm not even sure if Skybird hates (unthinking emotion) Islam. Certainly, he's not advocating the gas chambers for them. He does, however, apparently have an understanding of the Sha'ria that makes him conclude that it is best kept far from Western society.

America does mandate exactly that.

If America's constitution actually mandates "support" in the way I used the word in my previous post, then it is a mandate that has never been kept, and thus it'll be effectively "affirmative action" (read: unfair) to rejuvenate it just for Islam.

The fact of life, as previously mentioned, is that not every view gets equal representation (support). Of course, a lot of it is based on commercial considerations, but ethics and the community interest also play a role.

We come from a background of Official State Religions, and that is exactly what the First Amendment to our Constitution means. We do not interfere with religious teachings or practices (as long as they don't violate any other guaranteed rights, such as human sacrifice), and they are not allowed to interfere with the Government. Something as dangerous as Islam indeed needs to be watched, but the same laws apply to everyone, and ultimately this particular discussion is about nothing more than whether they should be allowed to build a mosque in a place they have legally purchased. We don't legislate morality here, and that includes declining building permits because we are offended by the reasons or the locations.

Denying that is indeed a 'slippery slope'. Who do you exempt next?

I'll say your debate with Skybird has left the mosque in the dust since Round 1.

The granting of a building permit, as I understand it, is bound by legality, but within the "legal zone", there is substantial maneuvering area to rule whether the new building is in the interests of the community ... etc. Or whether a certain old building that happens to be on the site may be more worthy as a historical monument than this new mosque...

And any such room should be used in the best interests of community.

[Skybird]

Wowh. We must play chess, KSII. That tactical flow analysis reads like the screenplay for a mission plan, and for me it is almost frightening to see a stranger whom I never met personally but who nevertheless seems to read my mind inside out.

And me hating Islam, you mentioned it somewhere. you are right, in principle I do not "hate" Islam or Nazism or Scientology. I am just determined in my resistence to them in full. That sometimes people see me as "xyz-phobic" or hatefilled may come from the contrast of this determination not to negotiate compromise, while today always endlessly negotiating and relativising and in the wake of this: giving ground constantly, is pretty much the standard way of solving conflicts, and forming the impression by that that no conflicts even exist. In such a climate, a total determination to resist and not to trade ground for favours given by the enemy, must appear to be unsuual, maybe even anachronistic. thus the usual labels: "he is irrational" (driven by fear, islamophobic, etc), or he is "hatefilled".

tolernce and freedom are deals on reciprocity, and where the other is not giving back as much as he is receiving, the deal becomes first more and more off balance, and finally results in the one side overthrowing the other. again, the deciding difference is that the one side is determined, while the other is not.

I refuse to play by such suicidal rules and conditions. Either all palyers obey the same rules and noone cheats, or just a single player cheats - and the whole match is busted for all.

Well done description of my position. I feel perfectly described. Thank you!