Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orlanth wrote:
Decay is also a property of society, energy is used to renew society or stave off decay. This is why energy companies are the most powerful, everything feeds on them.

You've already changed the sense in which you are using the word 'energy'. That doesn't bode well for you argument.

Orlanth wrote:
Modern society is in a way organic, it gro0ws and responds like an artificial lifeform, if it gets ill it suffers. This has never been more true than with our current advanced infrastructure.
Please remember our resource base is finite, tyet the supposed benefit of economic growth is drawing ever more heavily from it.

Stop trying to create analogical statements; they do not help you illustrate anything. Speak in the correct terminology.

Orlanth wrote:
Greed accelerates decay as fewer people consume more resources than they need to.

You've assumed a negative process which, eventually, leaves the human race at naught. Stop assuming things.

Orlanth wrote:
In fact the entirity of western scoiety is guilty of this. look in your local supermarket and you will see fruit and vegeteables out of season, a lot of that is imported. Individual bunches of cut flowers might contain the products of several different countries. There is a HUGE resource sink towards maintaining our infrastructure, while those companies in ther infrastructure can see a positive waste balance because to them it has been made profitable to operate in this manner. Globally it is a huge loss.

Where is the global account which tells you this? Where is the 'waste metric' which allows you to determine what waste is?

Orlanth wrote:
It most cerrtainly is, while the cycles might not have a trigger time the cycles are counted on and reinforced by those who understand the larger scale economic model.

This is absolutely false. Go back and read the news from 2 years ago.

Orlanth wrote:
The relevance of all this is that when lean times come some methods of social control are needed, to keep people content with where they are and whast they have got. State religion plays a part in this, state religion may or may not differs
from free religion, but at its core the choice of state relgion is largely irrelevant, any religion will do so long as it serves the state purpose.

More 'dogma', yeah? You are a conspiracy theorist, and therefore useless.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Decay is also a property of society, energy is used to renew society or stave off decay. This is why energy companies are the most powerful, everything feeds on them.

You've already changed the sense in which you are using the word 'energy'. That doesn't bode well for you argument.

Deja vu. Care to back up your comment please. You do a lot of denial of logic, but dont actually state a case for your denial. In what way have I changed my meaning. I have been consistent throughout.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Modern society is in a way organic, it grows and responds like an artificial lifeform, if it gets ill it suffers. This has never been more true than with our current advanced infrastructure.
Please remember our resource base is finite, tyet the supposed benefit of economic growth is drawing ever more heavily from it.

Stop trying to create analogical statements; they do not help you illustrate anything. Speak in the correct terminology.

What terminology do you want. My comments are valid, if you think otherwise please show otherwise. What is so wrong with the allegory chosen.

Take for example transport 'arteries', not my term, what would be the result of a fuel resource failure. Western society, at least in the locations concerned would bleed dry. Our consumer society requires a constant restocking, should the flow of lorries and trains stop the shows would run dry alarmingly quickly. Similar in a poetic sense to the fate of a man whose arteries are clogged and cant get oxygen to his body.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Greed accelerates decay as fewer people consume more resources than they need to.

You've assumed a negative process which, eventually, leaves the human race at naught. Stop assuming things.
Where is the global account which tells you this? Where is the 'waste metric' which allows you to determine what waste is?

Should you also stop assuming things? This is more than just an opinion, there are plenty of books and papers on the subject of resource consumption. The figures dont add up for sustaining a western style of living.
Do a search on the subject of 'ecological debt' see for yourself.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
It most cerrtainly is, while the cycles might not have a trigger time the cycles are counted on and reinforced by those who understand the larger scale economic model.

This is absolutely false. Go back and read the news from 2 years ago.

Care to back that up please, why is it 'fake' because dogma says so. Please provide an arguement, not a blank denial.

In any event yourself this what is happening to the companies that fail? Do they leave market vacancies. By and large no. Some fringe products might disappear entirely, but if a company fails due to the recession a company more savvy with the concepts of boom/bust which accounted for the hard times can survive and swallow up the market share. Ultimately it involves forsight in planning that is often absent from management thinking, especially with the western model of 'target based' management, which is symptomic of this type of failure of thinking.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
The relevance of all this is that when lean times come some methods of social control are needed, to keep people content with where they are and whast they have got. State religion plays a part in this, state religion may or may not differs
from free religion, but at its core the choice of state relgion is largely irrelevant, any religion will do so long as it serves the state purpose.

More 'dogma', yeah? You are a conspiracy theorist, and therefore useless.

Ok take a deep breath. I have perhaps wasted my time trying to argue logic with you. First I get denials without an arguemnt to expklain your denial now ad hominem attacks. Please grow up.

State religion is not a wild eyed conspiracy theory. Its open plain as day. In the west we have such concepts as state religion, partly with state funding and at times control. An example for you, the Archbishop of Canterbury and York, the two main prelates of the Church of England are not elected by the Synod but appointed by the secular government. There is a straight forward example of state religion right there.
An even better example is China, where religion is accepted sio long as it is state religion. This can mean Buddhism, but can also mean Christianity too. China has an official Christian church with doctrines approved by the state. China also has an underground free church, casually known as the house churches. House churches are persecuted in China, but China does not prevent Christianity as and of itself.

Here is one of many articles on the subject:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3993857.stm

Kilkrazy wrote:
The rum. It does it for me, until I get maudlin.

Now we know!

Orlanth wrote:

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Decay is also a property of society, energy is used to renew society or stave off decay. This is why energy companies are the most powerful, everything feeds on them.

You've already changed the sense in which you are using the word 'energy'. That doesn't bode well for you argument.

Deja vu. Care to back up your comment please. You do a lot of denial of logic, but dont actually state a case for your denial. In what way have I changed my meaning. I have been consistent throughout.

You used the term energy as an abstract, and a reference to energy as a property of physics. The two usages are not comparable outside of analogy.

Orlanth wrote:
What terminology do you want. My comments are valid, if you think otherwise please show otherwise. What is so wrong with the allegory chosen.

The problem is that you need to use an allegory. If you knew what you were talking about the allegory would be unnecessary.

Orlanth wrote:
Should you also stop assuming things? This is more than just an opinion, there are plenty of books and papers on the subject of resource consumption. The figures dont add up for sustaining a western style of living.
Do a search on the subject of 'ecological debt' see for yourself.

I'm quite familiar with the notion of ecological debt, the 'research' is nonsense because the categorical assumptions of the research are unproven. You can't simply say 'there is an account here' in order to will that sort of category into existence.

Orlanth wrote:
Care to back that up please, why is it 'fake' because dogma says so. Please provide an arguement, not a blank denial.

I don't have to. You have to prove your assertion, I don't need to prove the falsity of something that is itself unsupported.

Orlanth wrote:
In any event yourself this what is happening to the companies that fail? Do they leave market vacancies. By and large no. Some fringe products might disappear entirely, but if a company fails due to the recession a company more savvy with the concepts of boom/bust which accounted for the hard times can survive and swallow up the market share. Ultimately it involves forsight in planning that is often absent from management thinking, especially with the western model of 'target based' management, which is symptomic of this type of failure of thinking.

You've just argued against the notion of a designed 'boom bust' model.

Orlanth wrote:
Ok take a deep breath. I have perhaps wasted my time trying to argue logic with you. First I get denials without an arguemnt to expklain your denial now ad hominem attacks. Please grow up.

You haven't used logic in this thread. Please do not corrupt the word with your colloquial rambling. All you have done is conflate divergent meanings of individual words in order to construct a sophist's house of cards.

Orlanth wrote:
State religion is not a wild eyed conspiracy theory. Its open plain as day. In the west we have such concepts as state religion, partly with state funding and at times control. An example for you, the Archbishop of Canterbury and York, the two main prelates of the Church of England are not elected by the Synod but appointed by the secular government. There is a straight forward example of state religion right there.
An even better example is China, where religion is accepted sio long as it is state religion. This can mean Buddhism, but can also mean Christianity too. China has an official Christian church with doctrines approved by the state. China also has an underground free church, casually known as the house churches. House churches are persecuted in China, but China does not prevent Christianity as and of itself.

You're describing social control through information control. It is not a unique manifestation of religion. That is simply the mode you have chosen to perceive it in, which isn't surprising given your apparent tendency to lean on sophistry and theological reasoning in equal measure.

dogma wrote:
You used the term energy as an abstract, and a reference to energy as a property of physics. The two usages are not comparable outside of analogy.

Neither, I refer to energy in a practical sense regard world resources.
Reread in light of the above.

dogma wrote:
I don't have to. You have to prove your assertion, I don't need to prove the falsity of something that is itself unsupported.

Are you in any doubt that we are using more say oil, that is magickally appearing underground?
You understand that the population rising but the world remaining the same size.

How much proof do you need. This is a given to any reasonable person. I wasnt expecting anyone who deny that we are facing an eventual global resource crisis, are you arguing for the sake of it?

dogma wrote:
You've just argued against the notion of a designed 'boom bust' model.

You could have elaborated with a why so I could provide a proper counter to your denial.

Boom/bust model is maintained because boom/bust refers to its effects on mainstream business, the business that is encouraged to expand and borrow, to maximise profit and adhere to target culture, not the longer term business that accounts for the larger scale economic model and makes its real expansions in the 'bust' years on the backs of failed overextended businesses. Merchant banks have been relying on this business model for years, but the smarter companies can also account for it.

dogma wrote:
You're describing social control through information control. It is not a unique manifestation of religion.

There is more to it than information control, yes it is not uinque to state religion or religion in general.
At least its a step up from a bare faced write of of state religion as just a 'conspiracy theory'.
I will ignore the trolling half of your comment.


I think I am done trying to reply to you dogma. Have a free reply if you like, I doubt there will be any content in it.

Oh dear oh dear. I remember once upon a time when this was about a Mosque. Now it is no longer a place of peace but a place of one-upsmanship over logic.

So I suppose my smugness will play along.

A Mosque is a good thing, no matter what you believe, because it is a place where people gather to meditate or make their peace in whatever way they need to.

Cultural differences and bickering over religions which are all flawed only sows the seeds of hate.

Grant that religions are all victims of political manipulation and rife with contradictions. Just pointing out the flaw in another does not make a person better.

Therefore, in the interest of international communion, cultural acceptance, a Mosque should be built at a site of Jihadist attrocity, specifically to show a desire for peace and of not having something like this happen again because of resentment or some kind of grudge.

I say god, you say Allah... Buddha.... Krishna... whatever... its all the same thing we're talking about. I also say tomato. Religious politics are the problem here, not the actual faith involved. If they refuse to allow a Mosque it will just send a message that we are wanting revenge, and then when we get our revenge they get their revenge then we get revenge etc.

Mosques are places of acceptance, tranquility, and enlightenment in whatever form you choose to ask someone about, converse about, seek in the books they have open for anyone to read. Or to just sit quietly in peace and think.

If a Mosque is denied it sends a message of "we don't like your kind", it becomes "us" versus "them" all over again. If it is preserved, it says "we welcome you and yours to practice in peace".

Guitardian wrote:
A Mosque is a good thing, no matter what you believe, because it is a place where people gather to meditate or make their peace in whatever way they need to.......<snip>

If only that were (always) true. Sure there are nice Moslems about and moderate Mosques, it sounds like you found one. But there are also Mosques that need constant watching by the security services, manned by fanatics who have no intention of co-existing peacefully with anyone else.
Please dont be overly blind to that just because you have found a nice Mosque.

The odd fanatic church, synagogue, hindu temple excetera are a tiny minority of the whole. With mosques its a much larger minority, with a more extreme congregation. Westboro baptists, scum though they are, don't fund bombings as far as we are aware, and they are about as far as a non-Moslem congregation goes excepting whacky cults, and by all logic Westboro baptists are a whacky cult not a church. Islam really is unique in its reactions in the present day, at least amongst mainstream religions in the western world.

Orlanth wrote:

Guitardian wrote:
A Mosque is a good thing, no matter what you believe, because it is a place where people gather to meditate or make their peace in whatever way they need to.......<snip>

If only that were (always) true. Sure there are nice Moslems about and moderate Mosques, it sounds like you found one. But there are also Mosques that need constant watching by the security services, manned by fanatics who have no intention of co-existing peacefully with anyone else.
Please dont be overly blind to that just because you have found a nice Mosque.

Yeah.

It would be wrong to claim that all mosques are problematic. It would be equally wrong to argue that a mosque is no more likely to harbour terrorism than other religious groups.

There is simply more of a problem with extremism and terrorism within Islam. It is still a minority.

Guitardian wrote:A Mosque is a good thing, no matter what you believe, because it is a place where people gather to meditate or make their peace in whatever way they need to.

A Mosque isn't a good thing simply by the nature of being a Mosque.

Cultural differences and bickering over religions which are all flawed only sows the seeds of hate.

Grant that religions are all victims of political manipulation and rife with contradictions. Just pointing out the flaw in another does not make a person better.

Stop! You're saying bad things about religion and sowing the seeds of hate!

Sorry. I just find these three sentences ironic

Therefore, in the interest of international communion, cultural acceptance, a Mosque should be built at a site of Jihadist attrocity, specifically to show a desire for peace and of not having something like this happen again because of resentment or some kind of grudge.

Yeah. Al-Qaeda will be very forgiving of us once they see Islam's new mosque. Everything will be better then. Peace is a two way street. There are groups of extremists unwilling to walk it, and they'll do what they do regardless of this Mosque's construction. If anything it's construction just becomes some propaganda they can tout as a victory flag. A good story for the rookies about how they blew up that evil American capitalist state and replaced it with a Mosque. I don't see how this Mosque's fate will change anything in regards to our problems with Islamic extremists.

Religious politics are the problem here, not the actual faith involved.

So if they were building a Buddist temple instead there would still be an issue? Don't be silly. The faith is the cause of the current dispute. If this was any other religious structure going up I doubt anyone would care.

Mosques are places of acceptance, tranquility, and enlightenment in whatever form you choose to ask someone about, converse about, seek in the books they have open for anyone to read. Or to just sit quietly in peace and think.

Terrorists also like to recruit suicide bombers from them Again. A Mosque isn't a good idea just because it's a mosque.

If a Mosque is denied it sends a message of "we don't like your kind", it becomes "us" versus "them" all over again. If it is preserved, it says "we welcome you and yours to practice in peace".

It's funny how only the Muslim's can possibly be the one's wronged in this situation. People have loved ones who died in the towers. There's a legitimate reason for them to be upset at a Mosque's construction. But then again we get back to the crying over unspilled milk. 2 blocks can be quite the distance. I honestly want to know how far away it is. Are we talking 200 feet? 500? 1000?

LordofHats wrote:Yeah. Al-Qaeda will be very forgiving of us once they see Islam's new mosque. Everything will be better then. Peace is a two way street. There are groups of extremists unwilling to walk it, and they'll do what they do regardless of this Mosque's construction. If anything it's construction just becomes some propaganda they can tout as a victory flag. A good story for the rookies about how they blew up that evil American capitalist state and replaced it with a Mosque. I don't see how this Mosque's fate will change anything in regards to our problems with Islamic extremists.

Not really. The way to beat a terrorist group is to de-legitimise it in the eyes of moderates. In and of itself, this is just a mosque, but by remaining an open, tolerant and well, good nation you give the majority of muslims every reason to align themselves with us, isolating the extremists.

It's funny how only the Muslim's can possibly be the one's wronged in this situation.

Your mistake is in thinking of them as 'the muslims' as though they're a hive mind. The men planning on building the mosque are very different to the 9/11 terrorists.

Orlanth wrote:
Neither, I refer to energy in a practical sense regard world resources.
Reread in light of the above.

Yes, you used the word 'energy' in the abstract sense, and in the physical sense.

Orlanth wrote:
Are you in any doubt that we are using more say oil, that is magickally appearing underground?
You understand that the population rising but the world remaining the same size.

How much proof do you need. This is a given to any reasonable person. I wasnt expecting anyone who deny that we are facing an eventual global resource crisis, are you arguing for the sake of it?

I agree with you in the sense that we will certainly want for specific resources, but I do not agree with you in that we will want for resources in general. There is not enough information to draw that conclusion.

Orlanth wrote:
You could have elaborated with a why so I could provide a proper counter to your denial.

The implication of competitive forces is that there exists no central authority to 'engineer' any sort of model.

Orlanth wrote:
Boom/bust model is maintained because boom/bust refers to its effects on mainstream business, the business that is encouraged to expand and borrow, to maximise profit and adhere to target culture, not the longer term business that accounts for the larger scale economic model and makes its real expansions in the 'bust' years on the backs of failed overextended businesses. Merchant banks have been relying on this business model for years, but the smarter companies can also account for it.

That's not 'engineering' it is simply a reaction to the nature of the economy. You're attributing causal force to actors that do not have it.

Orlanth wrote:
There is more to it than information control, yes it is not uinque to state religion or religion in general.
At least its a step up from a bare faced write of of state religion as just a 'conspiracy theory'.
I will ignore the trolling half of your comment.

State religion as a general, manipulative concept is a conspiracy theory; and you used it in a general context. Unless you intended your use of state religion to be non sequitur, you could only have been referencing it in this manner.

You have shown yourself to be fond of conspiracy theories in the past, and it is no stretch to suppose that your attraction to this is similar. It is, as you are so fond of saying, your dogma. This doesn't indicate that you are wrong, but it does indicate that you may be a hammer seeing nails.

sebster wrote:Not really. The way to beat a terrorist group is to de-legitimise it in the eyes of moderates. In and of itself, this is just a mosque, but by remaining an open, tolerant and well, good nation you give the majority of muslims every reason to align themselves with us, isolating the extremists.

Yeah. One mosque built in New York City will win the war on terror. If we don't build it, it will just keep going and going. Build it now!

It'll take a lot more than one mosque. This issue isn't some deciding factor in the struggle with Islamic terrorism. EDIT: Islam as a whole for the past century has been facing a cultural crisis; one most obvious in the MIddle East due to it's adjacency to the West. It's a crisis we aren't going to solve by building a mosque here in the US.

Your mistake is in thinking of them as 'the muslims' as though they're a hive mind. The men planning on building the mosque are very different to the 9/11 terrorists.

Muslims have a hive mind? Gasp! Go back and read my posts. I go out of my way to make a differentiation between general muslims and Islamic extremists/terrorists. You completely missed the point of the statement.

No one really seems to care that there are people who feel wronged by the mosques construction. They're just automatically labeled as bigots and racists which I disagree with. I think they have a legitimate reason to be upset that is being dismissed. We can all rest assured there's probably plenty of racists and bigots among the protestors but I'm sure many just don't want to mosque so close to the site. Not that I have any clue how close it actually is. I've seen a little arial view photo of the mosque's proposed location in relation to ground zero but I can't really judge the distance very well.

On a small scale, you are looking at hurting the feelings of a few righteously pissed off New Yorkers. On the bigger scale, you are looking at a chance to take hate and ignorance one step down.

Once everybody gets over their delusional fairy tales we will all be safer and yeah I would like to ban the building of all churches, temples, mosques and so on because they all offend my faith, cultural background, reminders of historical persecution etc. However, you cannot just ban one without banning all of them and still consider it fair. If the Mosque goes, then maybe so should all the xtian churches.

LordofHats wrote:Yeah. One mosque built in New York City will win the war on terror. If we don't build it, it will just keep going and going. Build it now!

It'll take a lot more than one mosque. This issue isn't some deciding factor in the struggle with Islamic terrorism. EDIT: Islam as a whole for the past century has been facing a cultural crisis; one most obvious in the MIddle East due to it's adjacency to the West. It's a crisis we aren't going to solve by building a mosque here in the US.

It isn't a deciding factor in the struggle, no one thing is ever going to be the deciding factor in a global issue.

And yeah, the rise of extremism is a century old thing (something a lot of people miss, they assume Islam has always been like this).

Muslims have a hive mind? Gasp! Go back and read my posts. I go out of my way to make a differentiation between general muslims and Islamic extremists/terrorists. You completely missed the point of the statement.

Ah, reading it a second time I can see how you were putting the emphasis on the people who were wronged. I retract my comment.

No one really seems to care that there are people who feel wronged by the mosques construction. They're just automatically labeled as bigots and racists which I disagree with. I think they have a legitimate reason to be upset that is being dismissed. We can all rest assured there's probably plenty of racists and bigots among the protestors but I'm sure many just don't want to mosque so close to the site. Not that I have any clue how close it actually is. I've seen a little arial view photo of the mosque's proposed location in relation to ground zero but I can't really judge the distance very well.

Funnily enough I wrote this on page five of this thread;
"It's worth point out that a number of prominent Muslims also advised against building the mosque. While you might not care about the sensitivity issue, it was an issue of debate in the Islamic community, and I think it's a reasonable argument as well. I mean, while the Muslims building the mosque are not the Muslims who flew planes to the towers, that kind of detail can get lost on the people who suffered in the attacks, and you have to be respectful of that."

To me, it's a lot like the drawings of Mohammed, people have a right to draw it but that doesn't mean they should. The point of difference, to me, is that the artist's behind the Mohammed drawings were mostly aiming to antagonise Muslims, whereas the people behind this mosque are aiming to use it a way of bridging the divide between Islam and the West. Ultimately I'm not sure if it's a good idea, but they deserve points for motive.

Guitardian wrote:On a small scale, you are looking at hurting the feelings of a few righteously pissed off New Yorkers. On the bigger scale, you are looking at a chance to take hate and ignorance one step down.

We're talking about 1 step on a rather long staircase. One can argue that it's insensitive to those hurt on 9/11 to construct the mosque. What's more important? Sure maybe the local Muslims who want to use the services provided will be very happy, but you're just upsetting the opposite side. Either way this ends someone's going to feel wronged.

Personally, I don't care if some folks want to build a mosque. I just don't like the things being said about the people who do care. There's no law that prevents the construction on the site which is the only real issue concerning its construction. Anything else is subjective. Right now we're just seeing what are normally reasonable people in a state where they are venting confusion, anger, and fear. Seven, eight years? No bodies even going to remember this happened except some New Yorkers. The world keeps turning regardless of this mosque. Hate and ignorance keep turning with it.

Once everybody gets over their delusional fairy tales we will all be safer and yeah I would like to ban the building of all churches, temples, mosques and so on because they all offend my faith, cultural background, reminders of historical persecution etc. However, you cannot just ban one without banning all of them and still consider it fair. If the Mosque goes, then maybe so should all the xtian churches.

What was that about taking hate and ignorance one step down?

And yeah, the rise of extremism is a century old thing (something a lot of people miss, they assume Islam has always been like this).

The desire to learn more about why things happen is something I find lost on many people. They like to just take one look and decide at face value. It saddens me.

To me, it's a lot like the drawings of Mohammed, people have a right to draw it but that doesn't mean they should. The point of difference, to me, is that the artist's behind the Mohammed drawings were mostly aiming to antagonise Muslims, whereas the people behind this mosque are aiming to use it a way of bridging the divide between Islam and the West. Ultimately I'm not sure if it's a good idea, but they deserve points for motive.

Agreed. In the end it looks like the mosque is going up whether people like it or not. Like I said before. Give it a decade. No ones even going to remember this little blip. It'll go in New York City records where it will stay and the rest of us will keep on breathing (Until we stop breathing ).

Sorry. My sarcasm gets a bit extreme. I have no interest in taking away anyones church, temple, mosque, shrine, etc. they can do their thing their own way. I was trying to say that if you make one unacceptable then you have to make all of them unacceptable, not that I want to tear down all the churches. I don't care how people like to get their deep thoughts or social community of fellow believers, that's their problem. I care when it becomes my problem though. If the Mosque goes, then so do the churches... this way nobody is happy, rather than just one group being unhappy. See what I'm getting at? Either that solution or everybody is happy except a few angry locals misled in where they are directing their understandable anger.

Ahtman wrote:The problem Alby, is that you are assigning Western language to Eastern problems. For example when someone says 'logic', Dogma and I hear something very different (and more accurate) than your average person who hasn't had training. Suffering in the four noble truths isn't as simple as being unhappy or having unfortunate circumstances. It is more complex and ones status economically has no real bearing on it. The Buddhism you keep referring to is an overly simplified Western amalgamation of multiple Eastern philosophies. It has no bearing on the living, breathing religion. Are some Buddhist ascetics? Sure. Are some wealthy? Sure. Is it concerned with excessive materialism? It would define it differently and approach the subject in a radically different way than Christianity or Islam. The problem arises when you lumped them altogether as if they are all the same, which they are not; the concerns of Buddhism are very different.

But I'm not lumping them together as if they are the same! I'm saying that there are areas of natural convergence. Do you deny that? The religions that I mentioned all have standards of morality (and moral codes, either formal or informal), aspects of which are transgressed by certain behaviours and actions that are relatively common in the 'western world' (I am growing to loathe that term...). It is not a great leap to see that in the eyes of some religious adherents, our failure to sufficiently live up to their moral standards is evidence of the decay of our morality, evidence of our decadence. The consumption of certain foodstuffs and chemicals are considered 'unlawful' or 'incorrect' in some religions, there are rules governing sexual license, modesty, abortion, and yes, excessive attachment to financial wealth is frowned upon by some. For some reason you seem to have gotten hung up on this last one, when it was only a part of what I was alluding to in the first place. Which leads me to the next part...

As for my socio-economic status and religious preference, it has no bearing. It is akin to telling a Mathematician you think he has ulterior motives when he tells you that 2+2=4. Since when does knowing something mean that one must be untrustworthy? Especially information one doesn't have and doesn't know. Making these assumptions just makes you look desperate.

I found the whole 'it's ok to have a large amount of material possesions as long as you understand your relationship to them'-thing funny, I'll be honest. I tried to transpose that equivocation to another religion, Islam for the sake of argument: 'It's ok to eat this bacon sandwich and drink this beer as long as I understand that it's unlawful'. It just looks like an excuse do do things that one's religion discourages. I couldn't help but think you argued the point with such vigour because it's an excuse you make to yourself. THAT"S the relavance. Guilty conscience?

Albatross wrote:But I'm not lumping them together as if they are the same!

Of course you did. This conversation has been from you putting 4 of the major religions in a lump and saying they all felt the same way but aren't blowing stuff up. The problem was, and still is, that they don't feel the same way. If that weren't enough right after making this statement you go on....

Albatross wrote:I found the whole 'it's ok to have a large amount of material possesions as long as you understand your relationship to them'-thing funny, I'll be honest. I tried to transpose that equivocation to another religion, Islam for the sake of argument: 'It's ok to eat this bacon sandwich and drink this beer as long as I understand that it's unlawful'. It just looks like an excuse do do things that one's religion discourages.

to equivocate Islam and Buddhism in the next paragraph. Just because something might be hypocritical in Islam then it must also be hypocritical in Buddhism? Even though it is an apples to oranges comparison? Well guess what? It doesn't work that way. Islam and Buddhism are different religions and strangely enough that actually means that tenets, doctrines, and philosophies in them are different. The ban on pork is not similar to Buddhism's stance on materialism. They don't even have the same metaphysical outlook on what matter is (well, if we go into Sufi mysticism we might make a few arguments but that is a much more in depth conversation and one that would require some knowledge above cursory to really grasp). Buddhism doesn't actively discourage being monetarily successful or having things. You seem to be working on the assumption that when I say that it must mean it actively encourages it or is somehow endorses materialism. It doesn't. It doesn't discourage or encourage it because it really isn't the point. I'm dropping the subject because 1) at this point your starting to head down to person assumptions instead serious considerations which can't lead to good things and 2) you have already admitted to not really knowing all that much about the subject and admitted that you "had no doubt" that I did know what I am talking.

This thread has dissolved into 4 people endlessly trying to one up each other, but fear not! I shall get us back on track in as short a time as possible!

Islam is inately intolerant of all that defies their holy book, halal meat causes needless and unnecessary suffering to animals and should be banned, and as far as I'm concerned the less mosques the better.

but... I guess this one isn't a big deal if I'm honest, its not really a story is it?

I'm convinced as a whole Islam does more harm to the world than good, but what's one mosque eh?

plenty more to worry about.. what about the ones that are just normal houses but they don't have to pay council tax?!

I pay 100 a month, so that annoys me way more!

Why is another mosque necessary in a Borough that already has 30?

Exactly, so I'd counter with, why not? There's already 30!

As I said, I've no love of islam, but we can take the moral high ground, and its not an issue of there are 30 anyway!

30 where? There are eight listed buildings in Manhattan under Mosque that I could find, and not all are actually Mosques. To some that is eight too many, I can sympathuise but I can also see the boot on thr other foot. there are been too much hysteria about this construction such as scares that it is to open on 9/11/2011 and other such nonsense.

If there are 30 mosques it must be in a much larger area. Now if this was a sparse rural district that would be pretty heavy coverage, maybe even alarming. But New York is not iexactly sparesely populated, neither is Manhattan, neither is Manhattan small.

look at the link below:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=mosques+in+manhattan&fb=1&gl=uk&hq=mosques&hnear=Manhattan,+New+York,+USA&view=text&ei=sJphTK3fHY_f4gavtpy3CQ&sa=X&oi=local_group&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQtQMwAA

I dont like Islam very much, but I prefer to find a valid excuse before critiqueing. If this was a PC dogma flagship project and the Mosque was paid for out of taxpayers money, as happens over here from time to time, there would be some cause to complain. However if they buy the building and make it a Mosque the only reason to say no is if it violates planning in some way.

Curse those pc dogmas, have you heard about the council that is making all the school dinners halal? I would be giving my kids a packed lunch in protest make no mistake!

mattyrm wrote:This thread has dissolved into 4 people endlessly trying to one up each other

That's what debate is. If we all just agreed with each other this would be a boring world. You make it sound like acting like a person knows something is something to be ashamed of, or at the very least hidden as not to appear to be trying to "one up each other".

mattyrm wrote:Curse those pc dogmas, have you heard about the council that is making all the school dinners halal? I would be giving my kids a packed lunch in protest make no mistake!

Carteful Matty the low IQ squad is liable to turn up and say you have no proof the PC dogmas exist and that its all in your mind.

@Ahtman - Good, drop it. Better still, go back in time and never take it up in the first place. What I made was an off-hand comment, meant to illustrate the fact that Islamist conflict with The West is centred around more than just a hatred of percieved 'decadence', and you jump in with both feet with the intention of doing what? Proving you know more about Buddhism? Well, guess what? No-one cares, and it isn't relevant to the conversation.

Albatross wrote:@Ahtman - Good, drop it. Better still, go back in time and never take it up in the first place. What I made was an off-hand comment, meant to illustrate the fact that Islamist conflict with The West is centred around more than just a hatred of percieved 'decadence', and you jump in with both feet with the intention of doing what? Proving you know more about Buddhism? Well, guess what? No-one cares, and it isn't relevant to the conversation.

This is Dakka, madness is mandatory.

Ahtman wrote:

Albatross wrote:@Ahtman - Good, drop it. Better still, go back in time and never take it up in the first place. What I made was an off-hand comment, meant to illustrate the fact that Islamist conflict with The West is centred around more than just a hatred of percieved 'decadence', and you jump in with both feet with the intention of doing what? Proving you know more about Buddhism? Well, guess what? No-one cares, and it isn't relevant to the conversation.

Always.

Orlanth wrote:
Carteful Matty the low IQ squad is liable to turn up and say you have no proof the PC dogmas exist and that its all in your mind.

The question isn't about whether or not there is some for of zeitgeist at work in the public sphere. The issue is whether or not that zeitgeist is sufficient wrote to justify calling it a dogma.