So... What is your stance of the proposed community center near ground zero?

[Phoenix Wright]

One of the things that you have to realize is that I'm a Jewish Canadian. So when my dad (and my mom since she said this too) believes that Canada should also have a day of remembrance for the victims, I'm about to go psycho. Not because I don't give two shits about them because it was Americans and not Canadians. But if we go that far, we (Canada) might as well have a day of remembrance for stuff like Iraqi civilians being killed by terrorists and so on and so forth. I don't want my country to take on the weight of the problems of the world and give it as much significance as our own. Yes it was sad when terrorists aimed planes at buildings in the US. But (as terrible as this might sound), it's not a problem that directly involved my country during that moment and something about Canada making it our business doesn't sit right with me.

Just because you're in the a different country doesn't mean you can't mourn for the dead in another one. Your father clearly shows strong emotion towards this, and I think you should allow him to, not try to stop him. Perhaps an entire day of remembrance is a little over the top though.

I think Americans should mourn for the dead in the French and Russian Revolutions, and for those who died after the atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (main three that I know about but I have more). I think it's safe to say ninety percent won't, however. It's just a matter of opinion and how strongly you were affected by it.

[eclipse]

OK fine. But my point still stands as in "I don't feel right with my country having a day to remember people of another country". Like... Chernobyl. Nobody in Canada has a moment of solitude on April 26 when Chernobyl exploded and evacuated more than 350,000 people. That's about 20x the number of people who where directly affected by 9/11 (I mean lost someone that they knew).

Don't worry, I got your point! I figured I'd nip that holiday in the rear before someone else made a big deal about it.

I think holidays should be meaningful. For example, the whole of the United States celebrates July 4 as Independence Day, which makes sense. I don't think the third Friday in August should be a federal holiday, because that date is insignificant to 98% of the states. Likewise, the events on that day in September probably didn't impact the majority of Canada's population, so that wouldn't be a meaningful holiday.

(unless your parents are just looking for another day off. . .)

[lolDeath]

I think Americans should mourn for the dead in the French and Russian Revolutions, and for those who died after the atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (main three that I know about but I have more). I think it's safe to say ninety percent won't, however. It's just a matter of opinion and how strongly you were affected by it.

I think it's even safer to say that 90% can't. Nobody can make themselves give a shit about people they never knew dying, much less people who died before they were even born.

[Der Kommissar]

While I revile theists, the First Amendment is quite clear. It doesn't say "freedom of religion unless you get all butthurt." It's not a complex issue. Now, if you think we should change the First Amendment, that's another issue entirely.

[Roxas]

I'm entirely against the community center being built near Ground Zero.

I am, however, for the community center being built ON Ground Zero.

If we live with people who's religion has been mutilated by a series of unfortunate events and misconceptions, I want to help those get their religion back.

[Phoenix Wright]

I'm entirely against the community center being built near Ground Zero.

I am, however, for the community center being built ON Ground Zero.

If we live with people who's religion has been mutilated by a series of unfortunate events and misconceptions, I want to help those get their religion back.

I agree, however I can honestly say that won't change a thing. That building would probably be burned to the ground in a single night, and cause a bigger outrage.

[Kanami]

Very amusing. Firstly though I'd like to be semi-racist and say

"It's not American? So what?" XD

I've always had an issue with how being "American, British, Australian etcetc) should mean something. If it Un-Japanese of me to not like America, then I'll renounce my damn nation :/ (I've been told by a fellow class mate that we need to respect Americans, because..... of the events in WWII) Thank you for the A-bomb.

That said though, I don't dislike Americans, I however don't like them either. (No opinion) I do however dislike idiots such as the writer who think "It's American" means something. I know an American who laughed out "Boom!" as the tv replayed the same damn scenes over and over again for 30 minutes before he got bored. Insensitive jerk? Maybe, American? yes.

Completely agreeing with Sylvester regarding Canadians mourning the losses of the WTC. It's fine for them to think of it and mourn, but a day of mourning? Really? If it'd be a public holiday I can understand why they'd want it. But otherwise it's just stupid. It's been pointed out above. But I don't recall a day where American mourn the losses of Nagasaki or Hiroshima. And people are still dying today as a result of 1945. I admit, the WTC was a tragedy, but there's been a lot more recent tragedies, and looking through history, I'm sure there's plenty of bigger ones.

As for the Mosque, I'd think it's rather insensitive. There's a difference between "can they" and "should they." And I firmly believe they shouldn't. For the sake of both parties. Unless there's a magical way to convince everyone that the mosque should be allowed. Sooner or later an unhappy unAmerican is going to do something to the Mosque or it's customers/followers/participants. With the ramblings it caused, it's bound to happen. So it's not very smart of the muslim man to build it on or near the site. That said, his loss not mine. Less religious people in the world, the better in my view, but that's another discussion.

[Esau of Isaac]

Very amusing. Firstly though I'd like to be semi-racist and say

"It's not American? So what?" XD

I've always had an issue with how being "American, British, Australian etcetc) should mean something. If it Un-Japanese of me to not like America, then I'll renounce my damn nation :/ (I've been told by a fellow class mate that we need to respect Americans, because..... of the events in WWII) Thank you for the A-bomb.

That said though, I don't dislike Americans, I however don't like them either. (No opinion) I do however dislike idiots such as the writer who think "It's American" means something. I know an American who laughed out "Boom!" as the tv replayed the same damn scenes over and over again for 30 minutes before he got bored. Insensitive jerk? Maybe, American? yes.

Completely agreeing with Sylvester regarding Canadians mourning the losses of the WTC. It's fine for them to think of it and mourn, but a day of mourning? Really? If it'd be a public holiday I can understand why they'd want it. But otherwise it's just stupid. It's been pointed out above. But I don't recall a day where American mourn the losses of Nagasaki or Hiroshima. And people are still dying today as a result of 1945. I admit, the WTC was a tragedy, but there's been a lot more recent tragedies, and looking through history, I'm sure there's plenty of bigger ones.

As for the Mosque, I'd think it's rather insensitive. There's a difference between "can they" and "should they." And I firmly believe they shouldn't. For the sake of both parties. Unless there's a magical way to convince everyone that the mosque should be allowed. Sooner or later an unhappy unAmerican is going to do something to the Mosque or it's customers/followers/participants. With the ramblings it caused, it's bound to happen. So it's not very smart of the muslim man to build it on or near the site. That said, his loss not mine. Less religious people in the world, the better in my view, but that's another discussion.

Why is it insensitive? Let's bring this down to this simplest bare-bones discussion and work our way up from there.

[Silvercrow]

I'm entirely against the community center being built near Ground Zero.

I am, however, for the community center being built ON Ground Zero.

If we live with people who's religion has been mutilated by a series of unfortunate events and misconceptions, I want to help those get their religion back.

This is literally the worst idea. The sentiment is a good one but that's an awful way to do it. I can't think of a better way to increase negative public opinion towards Islam.

The only way anyone will ever "get their religion back" (I would like clarification on the meaning of this ambiguous phrase) is through understanding. Tolerance would even work in the short term I guess. There are a ton of things you could build on ground zero to help dispel whatever illusions people have about Islam, but A MUSLIM 9/11 VICTORY COMMUNITY CENTER OF DOOM isn't going to do it. If people wouldn't understand a community center 4 blocks away, why would they understand one on the site?

[Kanami]

@Esau

Gladly, it's insensitive, since people find it offensive. While the original document referred to blames politics and the media. The fact that people still don't like it is an indication that it is, offensive. Okay, I agree that these people are probably racist, will walk the long way home if they see a burka, and that their probably poorly educated. But not everyone can think like that, I for one admit I'm racist against a certain ethnicity. (Indigenous people) After they constantly snuck on to school grounds to drink alcohol on the school oval, and after having beer bottles thrown at me. I frankly can't look at them the same way I would any other people. (It's actually not that uncommon apparently). Will I hate anyone from that ethnicity? No, of course not. However I will feel more uptight and alert regardless of how "wrong" it is to judge someone on race.

To be completely honest, I don't care where it gets built, I don't even live in the US. But a post that got me to think so was a one made early on about Donald Trump offering to take the land. Being a man who can throw his financial weight around, I doubt the offer was less then the original purchase price, and to refuse that seemed a bit silly to me. Quite clearly a good portion of people don't want the mosque there (Don't care if it's a center, hospital or military concentration camp), the buyer wouldn't be left out of pocket. And I don't see the benefit on insisting the mosque be built on the designated site. People (disregard numbers) don't want the building there, there's no reason to insist on building there, yet they do. Makes me think it's either holy land designated by Allah, or that more then a tinge of pride came into the picture. The tossing around of the word "rights" is usually a good sign of that.

My attitude to muslims? I don't really care about them either, all the WTC incident did to me was bog down my evening news reports with information I didn't care about for a few weeks. (As I said, I'm insensitive, so why would I care about people I'd never met dying? They never existed in my eyes).

[Phoenix Wright]

Gladly, it's insensitive, since people find it offensive.

Would that make nearly every aspect of life insensitive? I'm sorry, but this is pretty poor arguing.

While the original document referred to blames politics and the media. The fact that people still don't like it is an indication that it is, offensive. Okay, I agree that these people are probably racist, will walk the long way home if they see a burka, and that their probably poorly educated.

And should a racist, uneducated person have any authority over the Constitution that you and I both assume they don't understand? It is the supreme law of the land, you know. A right not given to us is the right to threaten people off of their own privately owned property. That's unconstitutional (hooray for circular arguments!).

I for one admit I'm racist against a certain ethnicity. (Indigenous people) After they constantly snuck on to school grounds to drink alcohol on the school oval, and after having beer bottles thrown at me. I frankly can't look at them the same way I would any other people. (It's actually not that uncommon apparently). Will I hate anyone from that ethnicity? No, of course not. However I will feel more uptight and alert regardless of how "wrong" it is to judge someone on race.

Past experiences will make you more alert, yes. Aside from the fact that I have no idea what you mean by "indigenous people," racism is the belief that you feel you are superior to another race or ethnicity, which you didn't specify you are. You are prejudiced towards the people you are talking about. Nonetheless, I personally still find that unnecessary and unfair. It's also irrelevant to this discussion, haha.

To be completely honest, I don't care where it gets built, I don't even live in the US. But a post that got me to think so was a one made early on about Donald Trump offering to take the land. Being a man who can throw his financial weight around, I doubt the offer was less then the original purchase price, and to refuse that seemed a bit silly to me. Quite clearly a good portion of people don't want the mosque there (Don't care if it's a center, hospital or military concentration camp), the buyer wouldn't be left out of pocket. And I don't see the benefit on insisting the mosque be built on the designated site. People (disregard numbers) don't want the building there, there's no reason to insist on building there, yet they do. Makes me think it's either holy land designated by Allah, or that more then a tinge of pride came into the picture. The tossing around of the word "rights" is usually a good sign of that.

There's a lot of things people don't want. Does that stop anyone from doing anything at all? Of course not, because THAT'S silly. Yeah, based on opinion Al-Waleed bin Talal may be a douche as well as Trump, but they still have their rights. No one can take those away unless it was "necessary and proper" to do so.

My attitude to muslims? I don't really care about them either, all the WTC incident did to me was bog down my evening news reports with information I didn't care about for a few weeks. (As I said, I'm insensitive, so why would I care about people I'd never met dying? They never existed in my eyes).

In my opinion, that's a pretty sad and cruel way to view life. I think we could all agree that no one gives a shit if you've seen these people or not, people around us still brutally die every day. People starve, drown, get burned alive, die of cancer, fall off of cliffs, have heart attacks, get buried alive, and die of natural causes every day. To simply not care is one thing, but to announce that these people never existed at all is a little cruel, and therefore I don't think the word "insensitive" quite fits the description you're trying to give.

[Defeatist Elitist]

@Esau

Gladly, it's insensitive, since people find it offensive.

If find it offensive for someone to be black, does that make being born black, or procreating while being black insensitive? If I find homosexuality offensive, does that make it insensitive for people to be openly homosexual? No.

To be completely honest, I don't care where it gets built, I don't even live in the US. But a post that got me to think so was a one made early on about Donald Trump offering to take the land. Being a man who can throw his financial weight around, I doubt the offer was less then the original purchase price, and to refuse that seemed a bit silly to me. Quite clearly a good portion of people don't want the mosque there (Don't care if it's a center, hospital or military concentration camp), the buyer wouldn't be left out of pocket. And I don't see the benefit on insisting the mosque be built on the designated site. People (disregard numbers) don't want the building there, there's no reason to insist on building there, yet they do. Makes me think it's either holy land designated by Allah, or that more then a tinge of pride came into the picture. The tossing around of the word "rights" is usually a good sign of that.

I am not sure of the motivations of those involved, but there is one very good reason for them to not sell. If someone tries to tell you you can't do something that you have every right to do, if they tell you that it's wrong for you to do it, when it's actually not, then the worst thing you can do is give in to their demands. Sure they are offended, but fuck them, they're wrong, and if you give in to their pressure then you are in a way tacitly accepting what they've said.

[Kanami]

@Racism

Hmm think I should discuss racism first. By your definition PW the writer of the original article is a racist. By saying "not American" he is indicating that Americans don't act the way he's criticizing. So if not Americans, who? If it's UnAmerican to voice your opinion against a race, then what race does voice their opinion on another? In effect it's elevating American to a superior plane by saying Americans are accepting, caring and sympathetic. True for some, false for others. Either way it is comparing one race to another, and raising oneself as the superior race. Therefore I can't agree with your definition. In connection I do believe I am superior to someone who drinks their afternoons away and throws beer bottles as school children, yes.

As for relevance, it ties in with the "prejudice" and racism you're claiming not allowing them to do so would cause. And accepting the brand of racist before people start throwing it around. I associate "Native" people of my country with drinking and beer bottles, likewise those that are insulted probably associate muslim with danger. Both are wrong, but it's not something I can change without tricking and lying to myself.

@Constitution

Next is the Constitution. I honestly don't care. Your constitution, not mine. However I don't agree with silencing the uneducated prejudice people and declaring they shouldn't have a say to be fair or even decent. The constitutuion is irrelevant to me, so amendment this, amendment that means nothing to me, I know it covers something about being able to hold fire arms, and another about freedom of speech. And that's it. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not interested in American technical policy/laws.

@Unconstitutional/Taking away etc

I think I clearly stated that there is a difference between "should not" and "can not." Even without your constitution and what not they still "SHOULD" be allowed to build where ever they want (assuming they have the land rights to)

@Not caring/Not existing

They never existed in my eyes. I can't feel sorry for something I don't know. And while I've experienced death of acquaintances before, being told that someone died today over the internet/news. Means little to me. I acknowledge they existed. But to me personally, it's unimportant, irrelevant, and I'd probably have commited suicide by now if I had to feel down everytime someone in the world died.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(ValaRevan)

@Black

Wait, what? Black as in ethnicity? :/

@Insensitive

People have voiced their opinion that they disapprove, and continuing for the sake of "I have the right" is senseless. If you find homosexuals offensive and you've made your stance clear. Then a man walks up to you with his boyfriend and starts making out with him infront of you. Yes, I'd say that's insensitive. "Can they?" probably, "should they" well you tell me what you think.

Again, it depends on the objective. If the landowners are doing it simply because they "Can" and because they take pride in this "rights" nonsense, then I'd say they're being insensitive. Since I don't really think a mosque in that location is going to be beneficial for the owners, could be wrong. I don't live in NY, but looking at the responses from some. Certainly doesn't look like it would be beneficial.

@Motives

As I said, if they're doing it because someone said "they can't" and they just want to prove them wrong. That's pretty childish. Same concept as telling a kid not to go into the Dad's office. And the kid doing it just because he was told not to. Your argument here seems to be about proving someone wrong. And I honestly think there's more important things out there then proving people wrong.

[Defeatist Elitist]

(ValaRevan)

@Black

Wait, what? Black as in ethnicity? :/

Yes, black as in ethnicity.

@Insensitive

People have voiced their opinion that they disapprove, and continuing for the sake of "I have the right" is senseless. If you find homosexuals offensive and you've made your stance clear. Then a man walks up to you with his boyfriend and starts making out with him infront of you. Yes, I'd say that's insensitive. "Can they?" probably, "should they" well you tell me what you think.

a) This isn't the same. It's not like the Muslims went out of their way to offend people, they just decided to build a Community Center.

b) It wouldn't matter if they were. Even if they were specifically doing that to annoy you, it wouldn't make them insensitive. If something is insensitive, it

Again, it depends on the objective. If the landowners are doing it simply because they "Can" and because they take pride in this "rights" nonsense, then I'd say they're being insensitive. Since I don't really think a mosque in that location is going to be beneficial for the owners, could be wrong. I don't live in NY, but looking at the responses from some. Certainly doesn't look like it would be beneficial.

Why is standing up for your rights insensitive? Is it insensitive to maintain your freedom of speech? Is it insensitive to maintain gender equality? These are all things some people will be offended by. If it is insensitive, then there's nothing wrong with insensitivity. Sometimes you have to offend people, and sometimes you have to do things even when it would be easier to just not offend people, because your rights are actually pretty damn important.

@Motives

As I said, if they're doing it because someone said "they can't" and they just want to prove them wrong. That's pretty childish. Same concept as telling a kid not to go into the Dad's office. And the kid doing it just because he was told not to. Your argument here seems to be about proving someone wrong. And I honestly think there's more important things out there then proving people wrong.

Refer to my thing above.

[Kanami]

a) This isn't the same. It's not like the Muslims went out of their way to offend people, they just decided to build a Community Center.

b) It wouldn't matter if they were. Even if they were specifically doing that to annoy you, it wouldn't make them insensitive. If something is insensitive, it

a)The thing is, they decided to build a "Community Center" in a place they weren't too welcome in. Muslims and WTC is a touchie issue, regardless of the fact that "Muslims" as a whole weren't responsible. It's like flying the Nazi flag in a jewish community. It's their right to flag whatever they want, and them being supporters doesn't mean they're actually responsible for the action of the Nazi party.

b)Seems to have gotten cut off at the end? Either way, I'm using the term insensitive broadly, if you prefer to call them rude, pricks, assholes that's fine too.

This flows on to the next quote but, I define insensitive as being not "sensitive" of what others may think or feel. Building a muslim "Community Center" near the site is something even I can predict will lead to problems. For the land owners mainly, but if they're willing to bypass that and go ahead anyway, they've got some reason for doing it. And I really hope it's not the childish mentality explained in the last post. And no, I don't see being insensitive as a bad thing. I'm proud of my insensitivity :/

Why is standing up for your rights insensitive? Is it insensitive to maintain your freedom of speech? Is it insensitive to maintain gender equality? These are all things some people will be offended by. If it is insensitive, then there's nothing wrong with insensitivity. Sometimes you have to offend people, and sometimes you have to do things even when it would be easier to just not offend people, because your rights are actually pretty damn important.

Now you're twisting words :/ I never said standing up for rights was insensitive. I'm saying them building the site is insensitive, and you're saying it's a right. And on my side I'm agreeing with both. Though to be honest, I more of a "Duty>Right" supporter myself. I am stating that this particular case is insensitive, not that rights are insensitive as a whole. Big mistake in the argument there, word association is not a very good tactic to adopt.

[eclipse]

Since you seem to be here, Kanami. . .

But I don't recall a day where American mourn the losses of Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

I need to do some research regarding this tomorrow. If my suspicion is correct, then a day to mourn Nagasaki/Hiroshima would be irrelevant (at least in my area).

[Defeatist Elitist]

a)The thing is, they decided to build a "Community Center" in a place they weren't too welcome in. Muslims and WTC is a touchie issue, regardless of the fact that "Muslims" as a whole weren't responsible. It's like flying the Nazi flag in a jewish community. It's their right to flag whatever they want, and them being supporters doesn't mean they're actually responsible for the action of the Nazi party.

Being a supporter of the nazi party means you actively support their views, which are fundamentally racist. You support those actions. Being a Muslim does not mean you support the actions of those who crashed into the WTC, or that you even support the same views as them. It means you believe in the same God, in a vaguely similar manner.

b)Seems to have gotten cut off at the end? Either way, I'm using the term insensitive broadly, if you prefer to call them rude, pricks, assholes that's fine too.

Seems it was...

Now you're twisting words :/ I never said standing up for rights was insensitive. I'm saying them building the site is insensitive, and you're saying it's a right. And on my side I'm agreeing with both. Though to be honest, I more of a "Duty>Right" supporter myself. I am stating that this particular case is insensitive, not that rights are insensitive as a whole. Big mistake in the argument there, word association is not a very good tactic to adopt.

I'm not twisting your words. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you, but when you said "If the landowners are doing it simply because they "Can" and because they take pride in this "rights" nonsense, then I'd say they're being insensitive" and "if they're doing it because someone said "they can't" and they just want to prove them wrong", it at least seemed like you were saying that it was insensitive of them to stand up for their rights in this case. Now, I may also have been unclear, I didn't intend to imply that you thought rights were insensitive. I was trying to demonstrate that if you thought that what they were doing in this case was insensitive, then what about these other similar cases. I didn't, and don't believe you think rights are insensitive. I just tend to ask questions a lot.

Edited October 12, 2010 by ZXValaRevan

[Phoenix Wright]

@Racism

Hmm think I should discuss racism first. By your definition PW the writer of the original article is a racist. By saying "not American" he is indicating that Americans don't act the way he's criticizing. So if not Americans, who? If it's UnAmerican to voice your opinion against a race, then what race does voice their opinion on another? In effect it's elevating American to a superior plane by saying Americans are accepting, caring and sympathetic. True for some, false for others. Either way it is comparing one race to another, and raising oneself as the superior race. Therefore I can't agree with your definition. In connection I do believe I am superior to someone who drinks their afternoons away and throws beer bottles as school children, yes.

Nationalism/Patriotism/Pride in one's country and culture is completely separate from racism. If I recall, his use of "UnAmerican" refers to the loyalty and respect one has for the constitution, and not stating that the Americans are superior in intellect, physical strength, bravery, trust, et cetera. He's not arguing on social terms, rather political terms.

As for relevance, it ties in with the "prejudice" and racism you're claiming not allowing them to do so would cause. And accepting the brand of racist before people start throwing it around. I associate "Native" people of my country with drinking and beer bottles, likewise those that are insulted probably associate muslim with danger. Both are wrong, but it's not something I can change without tricking and lying to myself.

So it's more of an analogy than anything else? Cool, I now understand the argument in a different perspective. Oh wait, it's still not convincing me.

So you know you are wrong, yet you convince yourself that you're lying to yourself if you change the personal opinion you have towards others? Yeah I know, it makes no sense right? If you know something's wrong with you, you can't lie to yourself and think that you're wrong actions are right. Then again, Franklin always did say humans are great users of logic and reason. Sarcastically of course.

@Constitution

Next is the Constitution. I honestly don't care. Your constitution, not mine. However I don't agree with silencing the uneducated prejudice people and declaring they shouldn't have a say to be fair or even decent. The constitutuion is irrelevant to me, so amendment this, amendment that means nothing to me, I know it covers something about being able to hold fire arms, and another about freedom of speech. And that's it. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not interested in American technical policy/laws.

You're misinterpreting my argument. The constitution upholds the rights of all citizens, which in turn silences threats of taking another's rights aways. Whether you care or not doesn't matter; it's what permits the builders of the community center to build without being worried for their general safety.

@Unconstitutional/Taking away etc

I think I clearly stated that there is a difference between "should not" and "can not." Even without your constitution and what not they still "SHOULD" be allowed to build where ever they want (assuming they have the land rights to)

Yes, and you also stated the contrary, being that they SHOULD NOT be able to build there because you don't know the reasons for it, and that if they did have a reason, it was too insensitive to other people. What you are not understanding (because of all the cultural barriers between our two countries) is that they don't need a reason to build on a certain spot. They could build on satan's face if they wanted to, as long as they paid for it first.

Dude, I must say, you are confusing the hell out of me...

@Not caring/Not existing

They never existed in my eyes. I can't feel sorry for something I don't know. And while I've experienced death of acquaintances before, being told that someone died today over the internet/news. Means little to me. I acknowledge they existed. But to me personally, it's unimportant, irrelevant, and I'd probably have commited suicide by now if I had to feel down everytime someone in the world died.

This relates to the wisdom spoken by the demigod Death. :D

Anyway, this is where we differ most, I think. Obviously I don't spend my days mourning for the dead, however I do feel sad for them. Also, you're confusing me again: "They never existed in my eyes," and "I acknowledge they existed." Make up your mind, brah.

[Kanami]

@Vala First cause the other one has a brain tumor.

Supporting views is the same for religion though. Christianity for example by claiming "God" is the one true god is declaring all other gods to be fake, or at least over-valued. Does that mean a Christian can not accept other views? Surely not. They might not say it outright, but if this is the view they hold, then every other religion is just worshiping stick and stones. I actually don't like using religion since I'm also an anti-religious person, but supporting the Nazi's doesn't mean you're a member (and forced to support policy). The same way being a muslim doesn't mean you all have one view. Nazi's weren't all bad, human testing or whatever sped up medicine, if I was to fall ill and the cure had been developed by the Nazi's half a century ago I'd feel grateful regardless of who they killed and what they did.

As for the word twisting, this is why I hate forums, it takes one whole post before your opponent can clarify what they meant <_< And I'm well aware I don't argue my points very clearly. That said I did state that "rights" weren't too important to me, so the whole concept of rights isn't something I'm willing to argue on. As I said in my last post I was saying that the "building" part was insensitive, and contrary to what you said before, if they're doing it intentionally to cause a fuss it's insensitive, since it's clearly a sensitive issue which shouldn't be thrown in the spotlight like this.

Like the original article writer, I think you and others are doing the "media twisting" of "should" and "can." Individuals are saying they don't like the idea. That's not to say take the land off them and send them off in a boat. And people like PW are taking this too seriously by cementing dissent to the idea. As an outcry of rage against basic rights.

@PW... *Sigh* I feel like I'm dealing with a slightly smarter Psych <_<

@Nationalism/Patriotism/Pride vs Racism

"It's different" means nothing. Explain how it's different. In one case you're claiming superiority over all races, the other is contrasting with another and saying the former is better. I admit I think Patriotism is rather a silly concept. For one it's creating the barrier of "us" and "them" which is the central issue of discrimination. If they are you equals if all humans value this, why is there a need to highlight a certain trait as "American?" '

@Wrong and lying

No, I think society see's it as wrong. I thought I already accepted I was racist? I'm not going to change my opinion for others, since I don't care about others. Why should I care about the hardships of a black man? I've got enough hardships of my own to deal with without sticking my nose into other peoples racial complication. I associate Americans with extremities, you're a good example. But I know alot of other Americans who are able to discern that there are more then two options.

-Regarding the mosque you seem to indicate there's a "yes" or "no" answer. I've already said I'm not against it, yet you keep whining about preventing being an obstruction of rights.

-Racism is always wrong because it can't be right. Frankly Patriotism is a type of racism, but apparently it's an "Okay" form of racism.

People like you need to see the grey area inbetween.

@Constitution

Of course, you keep thinking that. The constitution in my eyes is a scrap peice of paper with crap written on it. Wave it around all you like, it doesn't mean anything to me. It doesn't matter that I don't care? But neither does the paper? It doesn't even look like it could be used as toilet paper. Toilet Paper > Constitution?

Furthermore that's your constitution, Americas. It is not the core of every society in the world. Yes, isn't that shocking? The world doesn't revolve around the US. And there are other nations out there.

@Take Away/Unconstitutional

Yes, and you also stated the contrary, being that they SHOULD NOT be able to build there because you don't know the reasons for it.

Citation please? I have never said the "Should not be able" to build there. I have stated I believe that they should not build there, considering social prejudices and a lack in profit/gain. If you're going to yap about things think first, it usually help;) Though again, we're back to the extremities of a yes/no answer

@My eyes, Acknowledge exist

I'll acknowledged someone died. If someone tells me their friend in Africa died, I'm not going to tell them they're lying. However I've never seen them, and therefore their death doesn't effect me at all. Why should it? I didn't even know they existed until I found out they were dead.

An easier example would be my Great, great grandfather. I acknowledge he existed. But so what? I didn't know the man, I don't have to, and I'm definitely not mourning his death despite being a relative. This is essentially separating knowledge (acknowledge he existed) from my current circumstances and way of viewing things. (my eyes)

[Esau of Isaac]

@Esau

Gladly, it's insensitive, since people find it offensive.

Which people? I don't find it offensive. Whose opinion on the subject should determine whether it's insensitive, then?

While the original document referred to blames politics and the media. The fact that people still don't like it is an indication that it is, offensive. Okay, I agree that these people are probably racist, will walk the long way home if they see a burka, and that their probably poorly educated. But not everyone can think like that, I for one admit I'm racist against a certain ethnicity. (Indigenous people) After they constantly snuck on to school grounds to drink alcohol on the school oval, and after having beer bottles thrown at me. I frankly can't look at them the same way I would any other people. (It's actually not that uncommon apparently). Will I hate anyone from that ethnicity? No, of course not. However I will feel more uptight and alert regardless of how "wrong" it is to judge someone on race.

So, if you agree that these same people would find it offensive for a mosque to be built anywhere, then how can you really say it's insensitive? Some people might find it offensive that Muslims are allowed to live in the United States. Is it insensitive for a Muslim to live in the United States?

To be completely honest, I don't care where it gets built, I don't even live in the US. But a post that got me to think so was a one made early on about Donald Trump offering to take the land. Being a man who can throw his financial weight around, I doubt the offer was less then the original purchase price, and to refuse that seemed a bit silly to me. Quite clearly a good portion of people don't want the mosque there (Don't care if it's a center, hospital or military concentration camp), the buyer wouldn't be left out of pocket. And I don't see the benefit on insisting the mosque be built on the designated site. People (disregard numbers) don't want the building there, there's no reason to insist on building there, yet they do. Makes me think it's either holy land designated by Allah, or that more then a tinge of pride came into the picture. The tossing around of the word "rights" is usually a good sign of that.

Because the person is obviously feeling like he is facing individuals that despise him. Why are you faulting him for facing them and standing his ground? Don't we regularly read fables about people who refuse great riches for something they find more important?

My attitude to muslims? I don't really care about them either, all the WTC incident did to me was bog down my evening news reports with information I didn't care about for a few weeks. (As I said, I'm insensitive, so why would I care about people I'd never met dying? They never existed in my eyes).

Because they did exist. You don't have to have met them to be sad they died. You're never supposed to feel the weight of their deaths as though you knew them, but you should have enough class to feel bad that thousands of people were murdered.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[Kanami]

Which people? I don't find it offensive. Whose opinion on the subject should determine whether it's insensitive, then?

~

So, if you agree that these same people would find it offensive for a mosque to be built anywhere, then how can you really say it's insensitive? Some people might find it offensive that Muslims are allowed to live in the United States. Is it insensitive for a Muslim to live in the United States?

Are you being sarcastic with me? ..... Well I get the impression you are, but honestly I agree with your interpretation. And it's probably the closest thing to an answer regarding the insensitive argument. What I feel is a sensitive issue, might not be sensitive to you. This thread is an example of that, PW has indicated that he feels strongly for infringements made against the constitution, I on the other hand couldn't care less. Regarding the mosque (Note: I call it a mosque cause it's shorter and easier to write) I guess my mistake was trying to see things from a anti-mosquers perspective when I don't care if it gets built or not. I'm "heartless" enough to say, I wouldn't even mind if the terrorists were buried right next to the memorial thingy on the former WTC site. It's honestly not an issue for me which way thing go.

Because the person is obviously feeling like he is facing individuals that despise him. Why are you faulting him for facing them and standing his ground? Don't we regularly read fables about people who refuse great riches for something they find more important?

~

Because they did exist. You don't have to have met them to be sad they died. You're never supposed to feel the weight of their deaths as though you knew them, but you should have enough class to feel bad that thousands of people were murdered.

Where have I faulted the landowner? And what the hell is it with your people and your bloody rights <_< I've read those fables, and think that a shady deal was made with the hero and king/advisor/noble after the princess was saved by a selfless act. Eg The status of Royalty maybe? A hot princess? Money? Either way fictional fables aren't a good example. I don't mind there being an underdog (David v Goliath) situation, but I'm not going to root for the underdog just because he's disadvantaged.

As for existing, really? And on the flipside, do I have to be sad that someone died? Speaking of which there was an ambulance blaring along the freeway yesterday.... I wonder if I should feel sad that someone got injured/died? If I don't value their lives (weight?) why would I feel sad? I'm not going to pretend I care about someone I never knew. If you're asking me to think about the secondary victims (relatives, friends who lost a loved one). Then I might feel something. But someone dying isn't all that amazing or rare.

As for feeling bad?..... You're joking right? Why would I feel bad about something I had no hand in causing, no way of preventing, and no interaction with besides from the other side of a tv/computer screen? Are you trying to make me feel guilty for still being alive when other died? :/

[Esau of Isaac]

Are you being sarcastic with me? ..... Well I get the impression you are, but honestly I agree with your interpretation.

I'm not being sarcastic, but I am exaggerating at some points to illustrate my viewpoint. Which part did you feel I was exaggerating at?

And it's probably the closest thing to an answer regarding the insensitive argument. What I feel is a sensitive issue, might not be sensitive to you. This thread is an example of that, PW has indicated that he feels strongly for infringements made against the constitution, I on the other hand couldn't care less. Regarding the mosque (Note: I call it a mosque cause it's shorter and easier to write) I guess my mistake was trying to see things from a anti-mosquers perspective when I don't care if it gets built or not. I'm "heartless" enough to say, I wouldn't even mind if the terrorists were buried right next to the memorial thingy on the former WTC site. It's honestly not an issue for me which way thing go.

So if you think something is insensitive, and I don't, is it insensitive? At what point do you categorize something as insensitive?

Where have I faulted the landowner?

I had the feeling you were characterizing his decision to stay as pointless.

And what the hell is it with your people and your bloody rights

Is there something wrong with a concern over the abridgment of a person's freedoms?

Not that such a thing ever really came up. I never said anything about rights.

I've read those fables, and think that a shady deal was made with the hero and king/advisor/noble after the princess was saved by a selfless act. Eg The status of Royalty maybe? A hot princess? Money? Either way fictional fables aren't a good example. I don't mind there being an underdog (David v Goliath) situation, but I'm not going to root for the underdog just because he's disadvantaged.

My point is that people are made to appreciate an individual's steadfastness in the face of adversity. There isn't a real reason it shouldn't hold in this case.

As for existing, really? And on the flipside, do I have to be sad that someone died? Speaking of which there was an ambulance blaring along the freeway yesterday.... I wonder if I should feel sad that someone got injured/died? If I don't value their lives (weight?) why would I feel sad? I'm not going to pretend I care about someone I never knew. If you're asking me to think about the secondary victims (relatives, friends who lost a loved one). Then I might feel something. But someone dying isn't all that amazing or rare.

It doesn't matter that it's rare, it matters that somewhere, someone that is a thinking, feeling person, just like you, lost their life.

Why shouldn't you feel sadness for someone losing their ability to exist, simply because you never knew them?

As for feeling bad?..... You're joking right? Why would I feel bad about something I had no hand in causing, no way of preventing, and no interaction with besides from the other side of a tv/computer screen? Are you trying to make me feel guilty for still being alive when other died? :/

No, of course not. I am saying that you should feel bad, as in feeling sad. You should feel sadness for the fact that a person will never be able to do what they could have otherwise been.

Why is it that you can feel sad for the secondary victims, the friends and family that have to bear their loved ones having passed on, but you cannot feel for those who actually died?

[Kanami]

I'm not being sarcastic, but I am exaggerating at some points to illustrate my viewpoint. Which part did you feel I was exaggerating at?

~

So if you think something is insensitive, and I don't, is it insensitive? At what point do you categorize something as insensitive?

~

I had the feeling you were characterizing his decision to stay as pointless.

Again, my fault I started talking to you with a negative impression and read your post with that sentiment. Due to reading this:

"the only person on this forum I really hate is Esau. It's like arguing with a partially deaf woman who's permanently on PMS."

Though at present I'm having second thoughts since I don't see the PMS kicking in XD

As for insensitive, I don't see why it needs to defined as a "yes/no" situation. And think it being sensitive or not is irrelevant to whether something should be allowed. In this case, opinion is too split to discern for certain whether the landowners actions are insensitive or not. As I said earlier, I think it'd be easy to foresee that the topic would attract attention of the negative kind. If he was able to foresee that and went ahead without good reason, then I'd say he's insensitive (screw rights for the moment okay? Not directed at you Esau). If he did foresee the complication, weighed them with whatever his goals are, then no, he's not insensitive. If he didn't consider the problems at all, he lives in lala land.

It's not really possible to state for certain whether the act in itself is insensitive or not since the motives and thoughts behind the actions aren't clear. As I said above, if he considered the problems, but decided that for the sake of the local community, a community center would benefit the region, then by no means is he insensitive. But in my mind, I can't find a adequate reason why he'd insist on building the mosque there. Surely there are other places which are in need of a community centre.

By no means do I think arguing/making a stand is pointless, that can't be figured out the moment I replied to opposition in this board. If I didn't think making a stand was worth anything, I'd just tell you something like "Think what you want" and leave it at that. I'd rather convince others, be convinced otherwise, or find a completely new method of though. After all that's what the point of discussion is.

Is there something wrong with a concern over the abridgment of a person's freedoms?

~

Not that such a thing ever really came up. I never said anything about rights.

~

My point is that people are made to appreciate an individual's steadfastness in the face of adversity. There isn't a real reason it shouldn't hold in this case.

I've interpreted your comment regarding why shouldn't he stand for his beliefs as a comment which enforces that he has the right to it and should stand for what he is entitled to, if that's not what you meant, misinterpretation. There is nothing specifically wrong with concerning yourself with freedom, it's when it's cited as a solution. "I have the right to" isn't an automatic license to be allowed to do whatever you want. I've got a drivers license, doesn't mean I can ignore the road rules. While the contrast is a bit different. "He has the right to" doesn't equal "He should stand for his rights."

I however disagree that an individuals steadfastness is a thing to admired. If I believe all Christians should be crucified and I stand by my belief that most likely isn't something which people should look up to, despite the amount of opposition (adversity) I'd receive for such a statement. In this certain case, there's no reason to admire him either. I don't know the "odds" but standing up to something isn't worth appreciating at all. It's the idea, or object that the individual is making a stand for. And as stated prior, we don't know what's going on inside the landowners head.

It doesn't matter that it's rare, it matters that somewhere, someone that is a thinking, feeling person, just like you, lost their life.

~

Why shouldn't you feel sadness for someone losing their ability to exist, simply because you never knew them?

~

No, of course not. I am saying that you should feel bad, as in feeling sad. You should feel sadness for the fact that a person will never be able to do what they could have otherwise been.

~

Why is it that you can feel sad for the secondary victims, the friends and family that have to bear their loved ones having passed on, but you cannot feel for those who actually died?

I don't see what makes a "person" so important. A bird is a thinking, feeling creature that is just as alive as any person. So are the flies I've sprayed to death, and that rat I trapped years ago with a mouse trap. I'm the cold blooded murderer of all these creatures but do I feel remorse? Not really. But I feel more for the rat then the unknown person on tv. Since I'm faced with the deceased.

Why shouldn't I feel sadness? Why should I? They lost their ability to exist isn't all that important is it? They wouldn't have existed at all had it not been for two people getting together. I don't remember celebrating their existence, why would I mourn the loss? Hearing about someone loss or some sort of loss is secondary information.

I could be told by my neighbor that they had the best Christmas last year, they could tell me all the "great details" and how "fun" it was for them. But do I get happy and excited hearing about it? Even moreso if it's just some random lady who sat next to me on the bus? My dad talks about how he had it rough as a kid, (walk to school uphill to and from school each day six days a week). Does that make it rough for me to live? Do I need to think, "God, I'm so lucky someone developed a bus route through this street" each day I go to school? There's no reason to share the grief, excitement or hardships just because someone, somewhere who has no relevance to oneself experienced something.

It should be obvious that I'm not saint, and I can't be feeling and thinking things for everything that I hear about in life. If it's neccessary I'll do the usual courtship "Oh that horrible, are you okay" routine, but personally I don't feel sympathetic at all. Simply because there's no reason to feel a "loss" when it wasn't a "loss" to the individual (me). That changes when it's a friend. Since it's indirectly affecting me, I can feel sympathetic then.

Why can I think of the relatives and not the deceased? Because the deceased doesn't exist anymore, if they turned to dirt good for them, they don't need help doing that. If they went to heaven or hell they're in a better place now. If they re-entered the cycle of reincarnation then yay for them. Ceasing to exist isn't something any of us can avoid, and mourning each individual loss and giving it any weight is likely to make anyone depressed. Unless of course, you're just doing the "Oh that's horrible" routine each time and don't really feel anything.

[Chalis]

"He has the right to" doesn't equal "He should stand for his rights."

If he doesn't stand for his rights, those rights get stripped away and no one will ever notice.

[Kanami]

If he doesn't stand for his rights, those rights get stripped away and no one will ever notice.

Really? America's that bad? You fail to exercise your right and it's gone forever?

You don't declare having a "right" and people walk all over you?

Racism aside that's a pretty shitty country. Glad I don't live in such a place.