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.

Ahtman wrote:

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".

Yeah, see, thats my point, an actual debate is cool (er... this one about a mosque?) but picking apart semantics after people make off hand comments like so many internet based forum chislers do is exactly that.. boring.

And i didnt "make it sounds like knowing something is something to be ashamed of or at the very least hidden" your doing THAT (see above) again

So lets debate this point, yes?

If you think the semantic questioning is bad here, then you have never seen a real debate.

Im a soldier not the leader of the penniless scholars debate team...

But... seriously, off hand comments get quoted needlessly and endlessly picked over and its proper boring me, alb and ahts "debate" was just..

Yeah.. it needed putting down, ive seen real debates, they are cooler than the last two.

The point is, we need something to talk about because it's a non-story. The mosque is being built down the road.

mattyrm wrote:Im a soldier not the leader of the penniless scholars debate team...

But... seriously, off hand comments get quoted needlessly and endlessly picked over and its proper boring me, alb and ahts "debate" was just..

Yeah.. it needed putting down, ive seen real debates, they are cooler than the last two.

Thats not a real debate. A real debate upon something with at least a modicum of merit, can be quite interesting. Debate's arguing esoterics are indeed as indeed as interesting as watching snails walk.

To reiterate: Fraz is interested in debates that he is interested in, and not interested in debates that he isn't interested in.

Its shocking, I know, but boredom can be induced in different people by different stimuli.

"the penniless scholar's debate team" ????
condescend much mr. soldier?

Well I guess we can't all train to shoot people for a living Mattrym, so maybe us weak little civilians should all just shut up unless we go and learn to use a gun to defend our right to speak. Either that or we could just debate our way of debating?

I would personally prefer neither, and I find the topic of religious intolerance very interesting to discuss and appreciate reading other peoples opinions about it. The personal attacks I scroll past and this is the first time I have bothered to respond to one because I took personal offense, being a "penniless scholar" myself.

I am proud of the fact that I don't have to follow orders to shoot someone, but instead struggle to get by in more creative ways. So in short... What you said was just mean and condescending. How does it feel when someone singles out your preferred supposed profession of being a 'soldier' and uses it condescendingly? Wait, you aren't under orders to answer that.

From now on, I'm back on topic... sorry guys just had to vent.

mattyrm wrote:Im a soldier not the leader of the penniless scholars debate team...

I'm not sure comparing an adult professional job to a High School or College team is a fair comparison. How about "I'm a soldier, not the leader of Britain." Really almost the leader of any major country will do. If going to far the other way seems a bit much how about "I'm a soldier, not a lawyer".

Guitardian, I think Matty might have been kidding...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
...Oh, you too, Ahtman.

Is flippancy dead or something?

Albatross wrote:Guitardian, I think Matty might have been kidding...

Don't let that get in the way of a good rant...

1. Nothing on this board could or should ever be interpreted as a proper debate.

2. I've not heard a proper debate, in a scholastic or largely legal context, devolve down into the semantics commonly argued on this board. As noted, that may be the case in some circles, but not the political debates I've seen (not politicians but politics).

3. I think Matty's fomenting about the arguing of minor word usage occurring now.

Bad thread to good thread back to lame thread.

Has this thread cross-bred with the one about the inadequacies of modern education?

Frazzled wrote:
2. I've not heard a proper debate, in a scholastic or largely legal context, devolve down into the semantics commonly argued on this board. As noted, that may be the case in some circles, but not the political debates I've seen (not politicians but politics).

Generally proper debates have a sort of self-selection system whereby the participants already agree on the nature of the topic, or agree to accept a sort of fundamental premise. Compare this to say, this forum, in which the qualitative nature of something like socialism has to be argued over, or controlled for, ad nauseum.

Kilkrazy wrote:Has this thread cross-bred with the one about the inadequacies of modern education?

My kid knocked up your honor student!

Good point and point taken. I was not aware he was kidding. Sorry Matt. (and I had just promised to stay on topic not ten minutes ago). I lied.

Someone stated a few posts back that allowing a mosque would just be one step foreward on a long stairway. While I agree that this abstraction is true, also it can be turned around. By that same allegory, denying the mosque just increases the distance we have to climb. It is after all, just one mosque. Extremists don't need a mosque in order to congregate and make their hateful plans, but they will have yet another excuse to blow up a building that is built on the site where they wanted the mosque. When that happens, all those angry locals will be eating their words and I will be back here in nowhereland shaking my head and thinking "I told you so..."

...it's also not AT Ground Zero, but down the road from it. I'm willing to bet that there's a Starbuck's even closer, but 'STARBUCK'S BUILT AT GROUND ZERO' isn't as exciting a headline.

Guitardian wrote:Extremists don't need a mosque in order to congregate and make their hateful plans, but they will have yet another excuse to blow up a building that is built on the site where they wanted the mosque. When that happens, all those angry locals will be eating their words and I will be back here in nowhereland shaking my head and thinking "I told you so..."

Funny how stairs work. Islamic Extremists blow up a building and a mosque gets built. Looks like someone got what they wanted

Appeasement is no way to solve a problem. If the only argument for building the mosque is "The Terrorists might blow something up if we don't" then you've just let them win. Seriously. That's the whole point of terrorism.

The only issues at hand is: Does the law say they can't build a mosque? No? Okay then. Problem solved lets get lunch

There's no need to complicate the construction of a building into some massive issue.

Doesn't that argument apply equally to all counter-terrorism techniques?

Albatross wrote:Guitardian, I think Matty might have been kidding...

At best he was half-hearted in his jest. Having read words and sentences he has written before he tends to have a touch of anti-academic attitude about these things.

LordofHats wrote:Islamic Extremists blow up a building and a mosque gets built. Looks like someone got what they wanted

Do you not really know what Al Quaeda wants? It certainly isn't an inter-faith center and mosque populated by patriotic American Muslims.

If the Islamics want a Mosque and there's room to build it, why not let them? Yes it is, argueably bowing to the terrorists demands as just pointed out. I would say however, while that is a side effect, really it comes down to people being free and all under the same law. The standard we claim to hold ourselves to.

Guitardian wrote: Yes it is, argueably bowing to the terrorists demands as just pointed out.

The terrorists have never demanded we build a mosque for patriotic American Muslims.

Ahtman wrote:Do you not really know what Al Quaeda wants? It certainly isn't an inter-faith center and mosque populated by patriotic American Muslims.

Does everyone miss the point? The point was that "Because Al-Qaeda might blow something up" isn't an excuse to build a mosque, or an excuse to build anything for that matter. Whether or not they want us to build a mosque isn't the issue.

Do people even read the entire posts or do they just nit pick the first sentence with sarcasm in it?

really it comes down to people being free and all under the same law. The standard we claim to hold ourselves to.

There you go Now you're getting it.

We build rifles, tanks, and planes in order to prevent Al-Qaeda from blowing things up. Indeed, the TSA is a whole organization founded on the premise that, if it didn't exist, Al-Qaeda would blow something up.

LordofHats wrote:The point was that "Because Al-Qaeda might blow something up" isn't an excuse to build a mosque

No one, but perhaps you, have brought that up as a reason to build it. I really don't know where you get that from.

dogma wrote:We build rifles, tanks, and planes in order to prevent Al-Qaeda from blowing things up. Indeed, the TSA is a whole organization founded on the premise that, if it didn't exist, Al-Qaeda would blow something up.

There's a difference. One is arming yourself for your own defense. The other is akin to appeasement, arguing that by giving someone who might commit violent acts something they want that they somehow won't act violently anymore or will act less violently.

You're absolutely right, Terrorists are going to blow stuff up anyway. To act like one Mosque is going to play a role in stopping that is ridiculous. It's not the actual argument I'm opposed to it's the idea that drove it. As Ahtman already pointed out, many Muslims in the US are very fond of being here. Arguing that the mosque will somehow help the war on terror is the thing I'm opposing. It's ridiculous. Guns help kill terrorists. A single Mosque in the big apple doesn't do anything whatsoever to help or solve the problem.

No one, but perhaps you, have brought that up as a reason to build it.

Go back and read Guitardian's second to last post. Maybe I misread it.

LordofHats wrote:
There's a difference. One is arming yourself for your own defense. The other is akin to appeasement, arguing that by giving someone who might commit violent acts something they want that they somehow won't act violently anymore or will act less violently.

Was it bad to appease the people involved in the Civil Rights Movement by overturning Jim Crow laws, and granting black people the franchise?

Sure, there is no guarantee that giving in to someone's demand will end their violent tendencies, but it has worked in the past and will certainly work in the future.

LordofHats wrote:
You're absolutely right, Terrorists are going to blow stuff up anyway. To act like one Mosque is going to play a role in stopping that is ridiculous. It's not the actual argument I'm opposed to it's the idea that drove it. As Ahtman already pointed out, many Muslims in the US are very fond of being here. Arguing that the mosque will somehow help the war on terror is the thing I'm opposing. It's ridiculous. Guns help kill terrorists. A Mosque doesn't do anything whatsoever to help or solve the problem.

Clearly, and I'm not disputing that. I'm more interested in the parallel notion that appeasement is automatically bad. To my mind any action which averts, or ends, violence should be considered positive.

dogma wrote:Was it bad to appease the people involved in the Civil Rights Movement by overturning Jim Crow laws, and granting black people the franchise?

The Civil Rights Movement wasn't flying planes into buildings now was it? I don't think they were demanding death to the infidels and that everyone become black either.

Sure, there is no guarantee that giving in to someone's demand will end their violent tendencies, but it has worked in the past and will certainly work in the future.

The problem is that appeasements effects are something you can only see for certain in hindsight. In determining whether or not to use it, you need to look at the specific issue, and decide whether or not it can help. The issue of Islamic Extremism won't be solved by appeasement. Appeasement is exactly what they want, and their demands are pretty high.

dogma wrote:I'm more interested in the parallel notion that appeasement is automatically bad. To my mind any action which averts, or ends, violence should be considered positive.

I don't think appeasement is automatically bad. In this particular context I think it doesn't get us anywhere. I was attempting to point out flawed reasoning in Guitardian's post; That building the mosque will somehow change the situation concerning Extremists. I wasn't make a blanket statement about all appeasement. Granted, I look back and I see I made one (Maybe two) so maybe that's where this issue is coming from XD. The way those sentences read weren't my intention. He's already reached the conclusion I was trying to push him too. That issues like this mosque should be solved by law not by the fear that Al-Qaeda might blow something up or not.

LordofHats wrote:
The Civil Rights Movement wasn't flying planes into buildings now was it?

No, but it does show us that appeasement isn't intrinsically bad, which is what I took from your comment. If that's not what you intended, then I apologize.

LordofHats wrote:
Appeasement is exactly what they want, and their demands are pretty high.

Doesn't everyone want appeasement? I mean, it would appease me if I had a slice of Bacci's pizza right now, it would go well with the Coors Light in my hand, but no one has thus far been willing to appease me.

LordofHats wrote:
I don't think appeasement is automatically bad. In this particular context I think it doesn't get us anywhere. I was attempting to point out flawed reasoning in Guitardian's post; That building the mosque will somehow change the situation concerning Extremists. I wasn't make a blanket statement about all appeasement. Granted, I look back and I see I made one (Maybe two) so maybe that's where this issue is coming from XD. He's already reached the conclusion I was trying to push him too. That issues like this mosque should be solved by law not by the fear that Al-Qaeda might blow something up.

Alright, we agree then. Now go get me some Bacci's pizza!

dogma wrote:Alright, we agree then. Now go get me some Bacci's pizza!

Okay, but the Pizza may not... survive to reach you No. That's not cheese on my shirt...

Dude, Coors Light? That's just helping the damn terrorists.