I got suckered into this arguement on FB on the NYC mosque deal
I have color coded the persons, and i was wondering if someone, with time on their hands (it is long) could let me know if I should have approached differently, if this was a lost cause (i think it was0, just general laughs, anything?
[OP]Dear people who are against the building of a mosque and a community center two blocks away from ground zero, your idiocy completely baffles me.
[Person A]it really isnt idiocy at all its an insult in my opinion
[Person A]the mosque is an insult to us*
[Me]if they really cared, they would offer to buy the land, and then the money they builders would recieve could buy a different plot- a property rights solution- and if it is a “sacred” site- then close the bars/night clubs/stripper clubs within a couple of miles of the WTC site
[Person A]its not supposed to be sacred or anything its just respect. if christians bombed something in iraq and then tried to build a church there do you think they would be allowed?
[Person A]but there not allowed to build anything over there anyways so
[Person B]There are numerous churches built near and around both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How about that?
[Person B]@[Person A].
[Person A]world war 2 wasnt about religion was it?
you shot yourself in the foot.. it may be tasteless/whatever but it is a basic property right (something, if the gov’t really cared, could over-ride the anti-illegal search and seizure admendment) and the property right, if they own it, they… can do basically whatever
[Person A]well..the germany part was but us vs japan wasnt
[Person A]its still respect. and the muslims have a history of putting a mosque as a trophy in the area that they defeated
[Person B]Actually, in a way it was, but that’s another discussion. The point is the religious affiliation or cause for the attack changes nothing. If your logic was applied, there would be almost no churches, mosques, or synagogues anywhere. Heard of the crusades?
[OP]Thank you [Person B]! [Person A], the point is that the entire Islamic following didn’t plot a terrorist attack against our country, a group of radical extremists did. There were Muslims other than the people that flew the planes that died in that attack too. Being against the building of this isn’t doing anything but making America look like a bunch of fools. We’re not the only people that have ever been attacked, nor will we be the last.
[Me]that may be, but that still does not give anyone the right to stop someone from excersizing their property rights
RE: WW2 the german was from WWI, Japan from TR- when you send an emmisary to japan(riding in on the Great White Fleet) saying you need your own Monroe doctorine for asia, and you need to civilize them, and then yell when they take Manchuko a…nd then start on China, somethings up
German from messing with the tribute, fixed gold standard, etc- lots of stuff thereSee More
[Person A]i understand all of your opinions but i just dont think the same religious community of the extremists should be allowed to build something of that religion so close to the attack point. i would be against it no matter which religion it was
[Me]then you support the stopping of property rights?
[OP]So if a group of Christian extremists had done the same thing, would you be against them building anymore Christian institutions around that site?
[Person A]look i know they can build there and im not protesting against it, im just not in favor of the idea. and yes maggie if christian extremists bombed an area i would be against them setting up a church a block or 2 away from it
[Me]then there is no issue, anyone can dislike anything, but so long as you do not impinge on others rights, then you can hold these views, and take any action that does not impinge- and if the gov’t did step in, it would be violating the citizens rights
[Person A]its never been an issue, iv just been stating there is reason behind the protest. people whos families that have been impacted by these muslim extremists have the right to be mad that the same religion is trying to set up a place of worship so close to where their loved ones died. the muslims can do it, its just not being respectful
[Me]and we can go in a bring “democracy” and “captialism” (really corporatism) to the mid east, although we were the ones who messed the area up to begin with..
[Person C]ITS NOT EVEN A FUCKING MOSQUE! Check your facts, its a community center, like a YMCA, open to the public, regardless of religion, with a small center for prayer seperate from the actual center.
[Me]i really don’t care- whatever it is, they should not be trying to stop them from using their property (assuming they own it) as they should, or if they are renting, so long as it does not go against the contract
[Person C]agreed, but this [Person A] kid is a f**ktard
Haha oh Reptar [Person C] ; temper, temper. And so I guess we have to tear down a whole bunch of churches in Japan then, if it’s so disrespectful. Everyone has a right to be angry, yes. But at this point we have too much going on in the world to stay s…tuck on one thing for too long. I’m not trying to say that 9/11 was minimal because it wasn’t at all, it was a horrific tragedy and I deeply sympathize with the people affected by it. But we have to move forward. The reason behind the protest is idiocy in my opinion; hence the reason for the status.See More
[Person A]and your immature im just stating my opinion
[Me]yes, [Person C] is immature at times
[Person A]i agree with you that the building shouldnt be “not” built but im just stating that im against a place of religious worship that is of the same religion of the attack sight. and we havnt had any christian extremists bombing japan out of hatred for their religion unless you can disprove me which im up for being informed.
[Person A]the people whos lived were affected by it have right to protest their disapproval. the people who are racist biggots that dont want muslim communities in their city are idiots
[Person A]whos lives*
[OP]Okay, I admit Japan wasn’t the best example; thank you for catching that. Although there are some things I could use to counter that, I’m just going to go back to [Person B]'s point with the Crusades. If we go with the idea you’re dishing out there wouldn’t be any churches or mosques or anything in a rather large amount of the world. Everything always circles around religion, the quicker we get past all of this bullshit, the better.
[Person A]and the crusades..the christians vs the pagans? idk my history but im pretty sure the crusades were to get the sacred land back from whoever controlled it. and since im christian and i didnt live back then, christians controlled the sacred ground first, then pushed back by whoever, then tried to take it again and now its Jerusalem biggest city for both jews and muslims so..yeah it kinda worked out.
[Person A]thats what i was told anyways
[Person A]and back around that time it was religious tyranny with the church trying to control everything. not to mention the strength of faith in the church the people had. people now think differently of christianity back then. the corrupt church was at fault for the mass slaughter of innocents back then even i’ll admit that.
[Person A]the times are totally different so thats no reason to compare. if this was 300 years after 9/11 and the muslims extremists have been..innactive? for awhile then theres nothing wrong with it. this is still just TOO soon
[Me]this is the solution:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/09/greg-gutfeld-im-raising-money-to-build-a-muslim-gay-bar-next-to-the-ground-zero-mosque/and http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/63753.html
[OP]Hahahaha nice find [Me]. And [Person A], this is going to sound reallyyyyyyy bitchy so please don’t get pissed at me for it; but please study up on the Crusades; you’re missing a bit of information there.
[Person D] agree with [OP]
[Person A]lol i said i was xD im not studying it or researching it just saying what iv been told. but my arguement with the time still stands
[OP]Yup, because all the religions just get along sooooo well now. It’s just cupcakes and daisies and cheeriness everywhere.
[Person A]thats exactly my point. thats why its disrespectful for them to put a place of worship right next to a place where their own extremists out of hatred of christianity bombed an important place in our country.and im not saying all muslims are christian hating monsters either, im just saying out of respect its the wrong time to try and build a place of worship
[Me]NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! it was not against christianity. If it was against christianisty, they would have hit the Vatican- it was against the imperialist, communist/corportatist/nazi west that is sticking their protectionist/mercantilist nose into the mid east creating the poverty that is there. It was not against christianisty
[Person A]we are definitly not creating poverty in the middle east the middle east is creating poverty in the middle east. they were that way before america was even discovered. when a country has something that the world needs they become prosperous. since there is economy over there. whoever makes the money keeps the money there is no spread of wealth. it goes from wealthy…to poor
[Person A]since there is no economy*
[Person E] personally don’t see why people care at all.
[Me]yes, but who is enforcing/creating embargos, who is overthrowing gov’ts in the name of “democracy”, typically putting in more tyranical rules, who is interfering in inter-region politics, and there is an economy there, and it’s exactly like ours- full of corporatism, just out in the open
[Person A]i’m pretty sure we weren’t invading their country trying to set up a government in their home until after they bombed us unless it wasnt as public as it was now. the whole “invasion” thing is a result of an attack on our way of life
[Me]so.. '91, late 80’s were nothing? we didn’t support Saddam or anything during the Iraq-Iran war or anything… nor did we prop up a corrupt gov’t in Iran, which was overthrown with a good orrator..
[Person A]and even if we were acting behind the publics knowledge that doesnt give them the right to bomb civilians. if the extremists were really out to justify what our corrupt corporate businesses are doing to them they could easily assassinate. thus saving many lives and not drawing as much attention to themselves. the whole bombing was an insult to america itself. not just business but to the civilians as well
[Person A]the taliban controlling their government before we invaded was a better lifestyle? im not saying its right to set up a government thats the countries job. but if the current government is supporting terrorists attacks on our country then it should be eliminated
[Me]to a degree, but can you blame them for attacking the symbol of corporatism? it was corporatism working with a gov’t and a sheep populace that caused the current system- a gov’t is nothing without public support- everyone one who right after said shoot them is just as guilty for the deaths of US servicemen and women as the mid eastern ppl for defending themselves
[Me]but we supported the taliban against the USSR.. again, something we set up
[Person A]are you honestly defending their attack against our people? what they did was wrong and deserved to be punished. we werent in their land slaughtering their people for no reason. we were fighting an attack on innocent people or “sheep” as you seem to be calling them
[Person A]the USSR was the bigger threat. the enemy of my enemy is my friend. we sided with the lesser nation to take down the stronger nation capable of doing more damage
[Me] do i support their attack, no. but the people were not innocent though- the embargo we put on iraq killed hundreds of thousands of civilians- the only positive thing from this war is the number dead is less than if the embargo continued, as… for the USSR, there was no problem- both knew of the MAD problem, and if you actually go through the documents declassified in the 70s (will take me a bit to find the book), you will see that if it was war, the USSR would be the DEFENDER, not the aggressor- they system was set up for defense, ours was the one for attack- i’ll send you the book title when I find it, remember the author, not the title.. {at this time I sent the link: http://www.amazon.com/Win-Nuclear-War-Pentagons-Secret/dp/0896083217/ref=sr_1_27?s=STORE&ie=UTF8&qid=1283294709&sr=1-27}
and the USSR was not a threat- there was no bomber/missle/anything gap- as it is assumed, there was one, with us outpacing them. Gorbachev’s press secretary was quoted saying that his view for the world was everywhere but New Zealand becoming communist, becaus thye need somewhere to get the prices- ie the system was going to collapse- see Mises’ “Economic Calculation in a Socialist Commonwealth”: http://mises.org/resources/448/Economic-Calculation-in-the-Socialist-CommonwealthSee More
[Person A]all people in that building are innocent! no1 in that building provoked an attack on themselves. killing over 3000 americans for something killing a handful of corrupt businessmen could handle. what your saying is arrogant and wrong. do you realize what it takes to take a life? that a handful of men sacrificied themselves to kill thousands of people who just woke up in the morning and went to their job to get money for their family?
[Person A]honestly. people are not tools for money making. no “sheep” is a better “sheep” than anyone else we are all just “sheep” just because your a more intelligent “sheep” does not make other “sheep” insignificant.
[Me] i think the “sheep” ended up being a false definition, and became a strawman- “sheep” i was meaning the people who go about without ever thinking of all the killing the gov’t is currently taking part in; in the name of advancing “democracy”…, thereby linking “democracy” w/ killing, instead of creating a role-model for people to aspire to, which leads people to 2 things- fixing internal(in country) problems, or emmigrating to countries that model the system- sometimes becoming “illegal” aliens, becuase they were born on the wrong side of an imaginary line, “sheep” are also people who unquestioningly submit to gov’t restrictions on liberties in the name of protecting them- and these liberties are contained in the Bill of Rights; including the 2nd admendment,
and the statement that killing a handful of “corrupt” businessman- do people respond to incentives? if so, then they weren’t, for the most part, corrupt. they were responding to a principle of mob-rule.. I mean democracy, that if you can get enough people to agree to something, then you can have the gov’t(and thereby) the us taxpayers foot the bill- [ex- off shore drilling, w/o gov’t subsidies is currently unprofitable- but gov’t subsidses, causing the Deep Horizon mess]
the “corrupt” officials are just responding to natural human praxeological concepts, that people respond to incentives, and when there is a moral hazard induced by them not paying the costs (Vietnam anyone?), they will advocate it if there is a potential for profit. If gov’t did NOT give subsidies, did NOT go beyond constitution( FED, EPA, FDA, SS, FDIC, large standing military) then this would not have happened, and for an added note, we would probably still be the #1 largest economy, increasing jobs, and less bubbles- but some of this cannot be shown empirically, only a prioriSee More
[Person F] It’s disrespectful. Nobody would imagine a Shinto shrine being built near Pearl Harbor. You won’t see a white supremacist church where Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated nor where the Oklahoma city bombing took place. You won’t find a …Catholic church near Hiroshima.
Take note that Muslims as a whole want tolerance toward them but in most Muslim countries it is illegal to carry the Bible. Point blank it is disrespectful, don’t try arguing that. The terrorists who bombed the towers did it in the name of Allah, that alone sets tension there. You know it.
[Person C] . If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. It’s a f**king duck. [Me]. That’s awesome that your taking a bunch of college classes and you think intellectually higher than the norm but go get laid. Even if you earned a PhD directed toward all of this, by the time you earn it you will have studied an overly vast amount on a very very minute subject.See More
[Me]This stuff I’m saying goes against 90%+ of what colleges teach- very rarely is this in any college anywhere- its anarcho-capitalist talk. I understand I don’t know everything, and in this, I’m actually very close to a beginner, but this is something I feel would help.
[Person F]Sigh I was really hoping you would not take the path of finding the one thing I say that can be turned into a completely different argument. As much as I’d love to get into a debate with you on your beliefs that you jumped into blindly looking only into it but let’s stay on subject here.
[Me]Sorry, I agree with it being bad taste, but (although some may just be saying it) some of their contrymen say that how they did it, and calling it jihad (sp?) is wrong- becuase jihad is supposed to be a defensive war, not offensive- basically a “rally around the flag and protect it”, not “go attack”. I do not practice Islam, so I do not know, but if they are calling this defensive (although that was an offensive act), they do have reasons to do so.
[Person A]what sort of defensive tactic involves blowing up over 3000 citizens? this was an attack to our country provoking a war that they did in fact start and we will in fact finish.
[Person F]Exactly [Me], and because of it being such bad taste we should realize that we shouldn’t bring up yet another issue on the inside of our nation and should be respectful enough to just say no to this.
[Me](thus this saying that 9/11 was offensive) but this was just another round in conflicts going back centuries, with both sides at fault, typically at the insistance of those in power (aka gov’t), but ultimately it is individuals who act
[Me]?? which other issue? to me, some of these are interconnected and realted to each other, and flow together as one has caused antoher into another
[Person A]and by centuries we were obviously invading iraq in the 1700 and 1800s right? this is in no way our fault what so ever this whole thing is a bunch of extremists picking a fight with the worlds giant and the pacifist anti wars having too much sympathy for the dunecoons that killed american people on american soil.
[Person F][Me], stop. Don’t pick out a small subject that you can argue out of what I just said. Do you agree with what I last said disregarding a possibility in connection to any issues between our main political parties within this nation?
[Me] @ [Person A] america itself, not- but were there wars between islamic/muslim nations and the “west”- yes, and those went both ways, and european nations have had attacks, as visible, not so much @[Person F] the thing is, if we say no to the building… of the center, we go against what this nation was founded on and tramble on the property rights, right of assembly, right of free religion that are part of this nation- are we some 3rd world.. I mean Undevloped nation (got to be politically correct) that we can disregard basic property rights? If people truly cared, instead of crying to mommy gov’t, they would enter into a negotioation to have them, probably with financial incentive, move the center to a differenct location, and if were truly a site that cannot be desicrated, move the original center and stripper clubs away as well- clubs are around the new center, old one is a couple of blocks awaySee More
[Person A]so these wars with europe provoked an attack on americans because that makes perfect logical sense that europe = america am i right? please there is no way possible that we provoked this and i have no idea how you can keep trying to defend them.
and another thing. are we supposed to just say here have some money and leave us alone everytime some1 wants to build a muslim place there? no it doesnt work. you get rid of the idea of it and no one else will try it. just because our natio…n was founded on something doesnt mean we need to follow it as you said about amendment 2 in the constitution right? because its not AMERICAN of us to help out the religion that attacked AMERICANS on AMERICAN soil so we should be AMERICAN and let them do what they please. sounds like we have no backbone to meSee More
do i believe what they did was morally/ethically/anyway 100% right, not- but are they 100% at fault- no the wars in 1700/1800s were pure Europe, but later- WW1, WW2, Iran-Iraq, supporting Israel, supporting corrupt regeims does include Ameri…ca- putting USA partially at fault, and seeing as we are one of the biggest supporters of one of their greatest enemies- we are grouped with them, and are viewed just the same.See More
[Person A]oh so were an enemy of their country and it was an act of war? you just won this arguement for me
[Person F]Sigh Alright, all I can hope is that my message got to you whether you will consciously admit it or not is a different thing but I’m positive you know right from wrong and what the most reasonable thing to do here is.
[Me]Jesu Christu Mia- let me get a word in
[Person F]Lmao Luke that was great. I end all further arguments on account that [Person A] just had the greatest ending to this argument.
[Me]@[Person A] “just because our nation was founded on something doesn’t mean we need to follow it” it is if it is the LAW OF THE LAND! if you want to be able to remove the rights of those (this was 1, not 2[2 is guns]) then you need to AMEND THE CO…NSTITUTION! (last time I looked at my copy of the constitution, there was no experation date) there is a backbone- you deal with who is responsible and do not bring innocents into the retribution, you deal with who did wrong, and violated the rights, and do not attack civilians/bystanders @[Person F] I do- you need to respect people’s property rights, admitted the 16th admendment removed everyone’s right to property, there is still that reminent and illusion
[Person A]look if christianity bombed your house would u let them build a church on it?
[Person F]Saying I need to respect peoples property rights is like telling a Navy SEAL that they should respect a school teacher…
[Me]?? I don’t understand that analogy, where is that going?
[Person F]Ok, I did a terrible job with that analogy. I wasn’t putting myself in it, I was trying to state that there is higher respect regarding 9/11 than property rights.
[Person A]im saying if a religion is going to act out in violence EVEN IF IT IS AN EXTREMIST the same religion should not be allowed to build in the same area that was attacked. I’m pretty sure this is called religious invasion, destroy then move and set in, gain ground and continue. even if this isnt the plan shouldnt we take precautions? or is america safe from all religious attacks oh wait…
[Person F]Haha I’m sorry as soon as I hit ‘comment’ I was like wait, that doesn’t make any sense..
[Me]okay, although it is property rights and the respect for them that built modern western society.
[Person F]F**k it. You have admitted that you agree you’re just too arrogant to let it stand at that. I’m done, [Person A] is funny. Dunecoon is a funny word. I’m tired. Poptarts are yummy.
[Person A]No one has rights. All people are given privileges from people who have advanced higher in the chain of leadership than they have. If we want to take away a privilege we should be able to. Were setting an example that little tommy cant be like his brother picking a fight then getting the shit beat out of him.
[Me]"no one has rights"… WTF!? so how does that work, is this a “might is right” arguement, what type of privilege is a right to self-ownership, and from said right, the right to your product of labor, and from this right, the right to anything you trade what you produced for?
[Person A]these are all privileges. do you see people in other countries with these “rights”? No. no human has the right to give other people rights, right? so who can say we have them. If someone has more power than you they can control you whether you like it or not. America has just been the most generous giving people the most freedom to do what they please.
[Person F]I have legs. I don’t know where this leaves us.
[Me]so I can walk in, sh*t on your bed, and if I am able to beat you up if you try to stop me, then I was perfectly okay with doing this? Is this what you mean, and if you cry to mommy gov’t, you will rely on coercion to overcome something, instead of relying on on respect for property and that man has the right to what he produces?
[Person A]well, if i cant do anything about it then you just shat on my bad and got away with it. theres nothing that limits humans to what we can and cant do. there is no “rights” there is a set of rules limiting us from what is believed to be morally incorrect. Thus privileges from leaders telling us whats right and whats wrong.
[Person F]7 more posts [Person A]…xD