Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6623|London, England
I don't even know how close it is to Ground Zero, it certainly isn't 'on' it. I remember asking the question earlier back as to how far away would the mosque have to be for it to be 'deemed acceptable'. I don't think any of the people who were blowing hot air answered my question.

Certain people want lines drawn when it comes to certain things (I'm just talking in general now), but they don't know where to put it and if they do they know they'll sound like a douche if they try to with any seriousness. That's how I see it.

Put your money where your mouth is, go all out and say it as you want or don't try at all.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5587

Mekstizzle wrote:

I don't even know how close it is to Ground Zero, it certainly isn't 'on' it. I remember asking the question earlier back as to how far away would the mosque have to be for it to be 'deemed acceptable'. I don't think any of the people who were blowing hot air answered my question.

Certain people want lines drawn when it comes to certain things (I'm just talking in general now), but they don't know where to put it and if they do they know they'll sound like a douche if they try to with any seriousness. That's how I see it.

Put your money where your mouth is, go all out and say it as you want or don't try at all.
2 blocks away. Which is pretty damn far in NY.
In any case.
New York Gov. David Paterson is offering to provide state property if the developers of the so-called Ground Zero mosque agree to move their project farther away from where the twin towers once stood, raising questions over how such a deal would be arranged and who might pay for it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08 … latestnews

Also it's not a mosque. It's a community center.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

Mekstizzle wrote:

I don't even know how close it is to Ground Zero, it certainly isn't 'on' it. I remember asking the question earlier back as to how far away would the mosque have to be for it to be 'deemed acceptable'. I don't think any of the people who were blowing hot air answered my question.

Certain people want lines drawn when it comes to certain things (I'm just talking in general now), but they don't know where to put it and if they do they know they'll sound like a douche if they try to with any seriousness. That's how I see it.

Put your money where your mouth is, go all out and say it as you want or don't try at all.
Personally, I don't really care either way.  I wasn't one of the people upset by this community center, but at the same time, I can see where the anger came from.

You're right though that people should be more explicit in what they would consider acceptable.

This stunt is basically a litmus test for what these Muslims will find acceptable as well.

The beautiful thing about America is that, for the most part, you're free to build wherever you want to as long as you own the land involved.  You're also free to believe in whatever religion you want to.

However, you're also free to offend people up to a point as well.
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6623|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

I don't even know how close it is to Ground Zero, it certainly isn't 'on' it. I remember asking the question earlier back as to how far away would the mosque have to be for it to be 'deemed acceptable'. I don't think any of the people who were blowing hot air answered my question.

Certain people want lines drawn when it comes to certain things (I'm just talking in general now), but they don't know where to put it and if they do they know they'll sound like a douche if they try to with any seriousness. That's how I see it.

Put your money where your mouth is, go all out and say it as you want or don't try at all.
2 blocks away. Which is pretty damn far in NY.
In any case.
New York Gov. David Paterson is offering to provide state property if the developers of the so-called Ground Zero mosque agree to move their project farther away from where the twin towers once stood, raising questions over how such a deal would be arranged and who might pay for it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08 … latestnews

Also it's not a mosque. It's a community center.
Pretty damn far, but not far enough? What would be far enough.....I'm just asking questions, you seem like one of those who don't (or didn't) want this building being set up
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5587

Mekstizzle wrote:

you seem like one of those who don't (or didn't) want this building being set up
Oh my bad. I meant the proposed community center is 2 blocks away from ground zero.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p3218441
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 7#p3182257
^My only other post about this subject. I think it's pretty clear, I'm don't care if it's built or not.


I'm not a fan of religion in general but this 'zomg ground zero is sacred how dare the Muslims build a mosque there!' thing is stupid.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5360|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

I'm not a fan of religion in general but this 'zomg ground zero is sacred how dare the Muslims build a mosque there!' thing is stupid.
No! You're stupid!






"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6651

Macbeth wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

I don't even know how close it is to Ground Zero, it certainly isn't 'on' it. I remember asking the question earlier back as to how far away would the mosque have to be for it to be 'deemed acceptable'. I don't think any of the people who were blowing hot air answered my question.

Certain people want lines drawn when it comes to certain things (I'm just talking in general now), but they don't know where to put it and if they do they know they'll sound like a douche if they try to with any seriousness. That's how I see it.

Put your money where your mouth is, go all out and say it as you want or don't try at all.
2 blocks away. Which is pretty damn far in NY.
In any case.
New York Gov. David Paterson is offering to provide state property if the developers of the so-called Ground Zero mosque agree to move their project farther away from where the twin towers once stood, raising questions over how such a deal would be arranged and who might pay for it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08 … latestnews

Also it's not a mosque. It's a community center.
lol that's even more ridiculous than I'd realised. I thought it was overlooking the site or something. They're just a bunch of bigots.
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6692|Tampa Bay Florida
I've always wondered about this Fox News guy.... everytime I see him on TV I just can't help but wonder if he's a closet homosexual.
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6651

Even Glenn Beck thinks it's kinda a dick move

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

Spearhead wrote:

I've always wondered about this Fox News guy.... everytime I see him on TV I just can't help but wonder if he's a closet homosexual.
That is quite possible.  Gutfeld is actually more of a libertarian than he is a conservative, so his social views are more liberal than most people on Fox.

I have no idea what his stance on gay marriage is though.

ghettoperson wrote:

lol that's even more ridiculous than I'd realised. I thought it was overlooking the site or something. They're just a bunch of bigots.
Possibly...  although we may soon find out if the Muslims in this area are as well.
mikkel
Member
+383|6603

Turquoise wrote:

I don't think this stunt is uncalled for, because the people behind the Muslim Community Center had to know that putting this place on Ground Zero would result in a lot of controversy.  Gutfeld is merely aiming at the same controversy himself -- it's quite a clever move actually.
There's a very obvious and distinct difference, though, between having a goal that stirs controversy, and having controversy as a goal. The former is a test of tolerance, the latter is a test of patience with the inane. There's nothing clever about the latter.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

mikkel wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I don't think this stunt is uncalled for, because the people behind the Muslim Community Center had to know that putting this place on Ground Zero would result in a lot of controversy.  Gutfeld is merely aiming at the same controversy himself -- it's quite a clever move actually.
There's a very obvious and distinct difference, though, between having a goal that stirs controversy, and having controversy as a goal. The former is a test of tolerance, the latter is a test of patience with the inane. There's nothing clever about the latter.
So, you don't think there was any consideration on the part of the planners of the Muslim Community Center that the location of this center would arouse controversy?

See, I tend to think that a certain amount of tension has always existed between certain elements of the Muslim community and mainstream society.  I think some of the people behind this went ahead with their decision knowing controversy would occur and that they welcomed it because of their own enmity with the mainstream.

We see things like this happen already in other countries between certain Muslims and mainstream Western societies.  The general theme of the situation is that fundamentalists like to exploit Western systems for their own gain.  The "libel tourist" in the U.K. did it with the broad interpretations of slander laws that they have.  This more recent controversy seems like a subtler version of this phenomenon, so Gutfeld is apparently going with the same tactic but in reverse.

Now, to be fair, I'm not suggesting that all of the planners aimed for this or even the majority of them did, but I certainly wouldn't assume this was just an innocent conflict of interests through and through.
mikkel
Member
+383|6603

Turquoise wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I don't think this stunt is uncalled for, because the people behind the Muslim Community Center had to know that putting this place on Ground Zero would result in a lot of controversy.  Gutfeld is merely aiming at the same controversy himself -- it's quite a clever move actually.
There's a very obvious and distinct difference, though, between having a goal that stirs controversy, and having controversy as a goal. The former is a test of tolerance, the latter is a test of patience with the inane. There's nothing clever about the latter.
So, you don't think there was any consideration on the part of the planners of the Muslim Community Center that the location of this center would arouse controversy?
I can't say that I can see which part of my post lead you to believe that. Of course they knew that the location would cause controversy, but controversy obviously isn't their ultimate goal. Gutfeld also isn't aiming at the same controversy as that which the location of this proposed mosque is generating. The controversy caused by the planned mosque is strictly one stirred by people who attribute guilt from tenuous association, a concept that is not compatible with our society, while the controversy that Gutfeld is aiming for with this tedious display of the pervasive trench warfare mentality is the kind caused by needless confrontation. To compare the two is an insult.
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5475|Ventura, California
I just love how Gutfield offered Glenn to come and check it out.

This gay bar won't work. No alcoholic beverages, total Islamic atmosphere? Islamic people aren't stupid, they won't go to a gay bar right next to the Mosque they go to.

EDIT: This is just as provocatively stupid as Iran digging mass graves for U.S. troops that will "Invade Iran".

Last edited by -Sh1fty- (2010-08-11 18:10:10)

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6550|San Diego, CA, USA
/liberialspeak But he's bringing `Awareness` to Homophobia in the Islamic World?
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6692|Tampa Bay Florida

Harmor wrote:

/liberialspeak But he's bringing `Awareness` to Homophobia in the Islamic World?
I think most of us realize this guy is just a douchebag trying too hard to make a point.... there are a lots of gay bars in NYC, and there are also Muslims who are gay.  And, not that it needs mentioning, but the "family values" Christians have also done a pretty good job of alienating gays themselves. 

It's safe to say, I think, the vast majority of homosexuals are not religious.  All religions throughout history have been equally homophobic.... this is a ploy just to piss of muslims.  You don't see any of us going around trying to start up gay bars next to fundamentalist churches just because we don't agree with their religious beliefs.

Last edited by Spearhead (2010-08-11 19:35:04)

Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6676|Canberra, AUS
In brief - the difference between those behind the mosque and this guy is that they aren't deliberately trying to be dickheads, whilst this guy is.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

mikkel wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

mikkel wrote:


There's a very obvious and distinct difference, though, between having a goal that stirs controversy, and having controversy as a goal. The former is a test of tolerance, the latter is a test of patience with the inane. There's nothing clever about the latter.
So, you don't think there was any consideration on the part of the planners of the Muslim Community Center that the location of this center would arouse controversy?
I can't say that I can see which part of my post lead you to believe that. Of course they knew that the location would cause controversy, but controversy obviously isn't their ultimate goal. Gutfeld also isn't aiming at the same controversy as that which the location of this proposed mosque is generating. The controversy caused by the planned mosque is strictly one stirred by people who attribute guilt from tenuous association, a concept that is not compatible with our society, while the controversy that Gutfeld is aiming for with this tedious display of the pervasive trench warfare mentality is the kind caused by needless confrontation. To compare the two is an insult.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

Spearhead wrote:

Harmor wrote:

/liberialspeak But he's bringing `Awareness` to Homophobia in the Islamic World?
I think most of us realize this guy is just a douchebag trying too hard to make a point.... there are a lots of gay bars in NYC, and there are also Muslims who are gay.  And, not that it needs mentioning, but the "family values" Christians have also done a pretty good job of alienating gays themselves. 

It's safe to say, I think, the vast majority of homosexuals are not religious.  All religions throughout history have been equally homophobic.... this is a ploy just to piss of muslims.  You don't see any of us going around trying to start up gay bars next to fundamentalist churches just because we don't agree with their religious beliefs.
The reason why I find the stunt amusing is because religion itself (whether Islam, Christianity, or any other faith) is so antiquated, and in most cases, religion is very homophobic.  Mikkel is saying that it's needlessly confrontational, but I would argue that we should be more confrontational against religion because it's generally an institution that holds back social progress -- especially Islam.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5360|London, England
This will be a titanic waste of money if it ever really happens. This isn't San Francisco; we New Yorkers don't want politics with our beer.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6718

JohnG@lt wrote:

This will be a titanic waste of money if it ever really happens. This isn't San Francisco; we New Yorkers don't want politics with our beer.
Obviously it's just a fuck you to hajjis.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
mikkel
Member
+383|6603

Turquoise wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Harmor wrote:

/liberialspeak But he's bringing `Awareness` to Homophobia in the Islamic World?
I think most of us realize this guy is just a douchebag trying too hard to make a point.... there are a lots of gay bars in NYC, and there are also Muslims who are gay.  And, not that it needs mentioning, but the "family values" Christians have also done a pretty good job of alienating gays themselves. 

It's safe to say, I think, the vast majority of homosexuals are not religious.  All religions throughout history have been equally homophobic.... this is a ploy just to piss of muslims.  You don't see any of us going around trying to start up gay bars next to fundamentalist churches just because we don't agree with their religious beliefs.
Mikkel is saying that it's needlessly confrontational, but I would argue that we should be more confrontational against religion because it's generally an institution that holds back social progress -- especially Islam.
Oh no, I wholly agree that Islam in the Western world should be confronted about the elements which are incompatible with Western societies. What I'm saying is that this planned muslim gay bar clearly has nothing to do with seeking out sensible debate, and everything to do with provoking a group of people who choose to do something that is wholly within their rights, for reasons that are utterly ridiculous. It's a retaliatory move by simple-minded individuals who see collusion between people who pray to the same deity. Imagine how the world would look if everyone assumed that kind of reasoning.

Last edited by mikkel (2010-08-12 09:08:52)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

mikkel wrote:

Oh no, I wholly agree that Islam in the Western world should be confronted about the elements which are incompatible with Western societies. What I'm saying is that this planned muslim gay bar clearly has nothing to do with seeking out sensible debate, and everything to do with provoking a group of people who choose to do something that is wholly within their rights, for reasons that are utterly ridiculous. It's a retaliatory move by simple-minded individuals who see collusion between people who pray to the same deity. Imagine how the world would look if everyone assumed that kind of reasoning.
I see where you're coming from.  I'm not saying all Muslims are gay hating fundamentalists.  However, I would say that I've seen quite a bit of evidence that many Muslims seem closeted in their fundamentalism.

Here's a good example: the average Muslim in Denmark is probably moderate on most issues; however, when the Danish cartoons of Mohammed were highly publicized, lots of otherwise moderate Muslims started acting very radically in protest.  Now, admittedly, some of this was the result of clerics manipulating them, but the fact remains that these particular Muslims weren't exactly as well-adjusted to free speech as they might have thought they were beforehand.

By the same token, many Muslims seem to hold very condemning views of gays.  They may or may not be open in their feelings on gays, but when confronted with gays right next to their community center, some of them might lash out in protest.

Granted, I'm not saying this makes them that different from many Christians.  I'm sure if you put a gay bar next to many Christian churches or community centers, you'd probably get a similar response.  However, the fact that this is an issue to begin with is something worth examining through provocation, IMHO.

I realize Gutfeld is just an attention whore, but I think this move might inadvertently bring some much needed discussion concerning Islam's view of gays.
mikkel
Member
+383|6603

Turquoise wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Oh no, I wholly agree that Islam in the Western world should be confronted about the elements which are incompatible with Western societies. What I'm saying is that this planned muslim gay bar clearly has nothing to do with seeking out sensible debate, and everything to do with provoking a group of people who choose to do something that is wholly within their rights, for reasons that are utterly ridiculous. It's a retaliatory move by simple-minded individuals who see collusion between people who pray to the same deity. Imagine how the world would look if everyone assumed that kind of reasoning.
I see where you're coming from.  I'm not saying all Muslims are gay hating fundamentalists.  However, I would say that I've seen quite a bit of evidence that many Muslims seem closeted in their fundamentalism.

Here's a good example: the average Muslim in Denmark is probably moderate on most issues; however, when the Danish cartoons of Mohammed were highly publicized, lots of otherwise moderate Muslims started acting very radically in protest.  Now, admittedly, some of this was the result of clerics manipulating them, but the fact remains that these particular Muslims weren't exactly as well-adjusted to free speech as they might have thought they were beforehand.

By the same token, many Muslims seem to hold very condemning views of gays.  They may or may not be open in their feelings on gays, but when confronted with gays right next to their community center, some of them might lash out in protest.

Granted, I'm not saying this makes them that different from many Christians.  I'm sure if you put a gay bar next to many Christian churches or community centers, you'd probably get a similar response.  However, the fact that this is an issue to begin with is something worth examining through provocation, IMHO.

I realize Gutfeld is just an attention whore, but I think this move might inadvertently bring some much needed discussion concerning Islam's view of gays.
I understand what you're saying, and I agree that there's a need for dialogue on the issues you mention. The problem with having this kind of dialogue as an incidental consequence of a provocation made for the sake of provocation is that the tone will be set by the people rising to the provocation, rather than the people interested in the actual dialogue. You can't shake hands with a closed fist, and fighting isn't a good way to make friends.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

mikkel wrote:

I understand what you're saying, and I agree that there's a need for dialogue on the issues you mention. The problem with having this kind of dialogue as an incidental consequence of a provocation made for the sake of provocation is that the tone will be set by the people rising to the provocation, rather than the people interested in the actual dialogue. You can't shake hands with a closed fist, and fighting isn't a good way to make friends.
I can agree with that.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard