Ground Zero Mosque

[Pwnemon]

What do they think about keeping the economy in check? Are they more conservative or liberal there?

 

[Aisling]

Hmm... Now, that I don't know. My sister and my grandpa and I discussed it briefly yesterday and reached the consensus that to fix the current problem, the government needs to spend less money on the military because we already have enough nukes to destroy the world several times over, try to focus on fixing unemployment (by way of actually getting people jobs and not so much just handing them money because they would just give it right back to ->) so people have more money to pay taxes, so taxes can eventually be raised a bit, so the government has more money to try to fix things with, and that the government generally just quit spending on stupid things so it can get out of debt. And if it's related, they're for healthcare reform and the public option. But other than that they really never talk about it much, at least not around me that I can remember.

 

[Pwnemon]

Now THAT'S a stance I've never heard before. It's like... moderate, but instead of having moderate views, they have half conservative views and half liberal views. *Mind explodes.* You can guess my stance.

 

[Phantom]

How did a topic about a mosque on Ground Zero turn into one about the Second Amendment?

 

[Pwnemon]

You're like two pages back aren't you?

 

[Phantom]

Trying to catch up. I have seen plenty of atheists with conservative views. Though I feel that we are getting off topic here.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

You're horribly mistaken if you try to say that the Tea Party is largely supportive of Birthers.

I think you have a serious problem with equivocating sentences. Opal said that Birthers are largely supportive of the Tea Party, which you interpreted as her saying that the Tea Party is largely supportive of Birthers. Which is not the same thing. You did something similar earlier in the thread.

Secondly, I guess it's just an ideological difference between us. I think the government worked great back then, you think it should reflect the times. Now that you say it, it reminds me that it's actually the core difference between progressives and conservatives.

And also the core silliness of conservatism;

Conservative 1: Oh no, a new and dangerous problem that we've never encountered before is slowly destroying our society! What should we do?

Conservative 2: Maintain the status quo! Doing what we've always been doing will surely stop this brand new problem that is destroying society as it is!

Whereas with progressivism;

Progressive 1: Oh no, a new and dangerous problem that we've never encountered before is slowly destroying our society! What should we do?

Progressive 2: Change the current circumstances in order to fight the problem!

Conservatism has no problem-solving value. When everything is going fine, conservatism works but when things go down the shitter, you need to change the way things are. And the fact of the matter is that things are never fine, therefore, conservatism is a useless political stance; it advocates maintaining the status quo in the face of new adversity and never changing to suit new factors, pressures and circumstances.

 

[Pwnemon]

Well, I can say one thing: The thing that caused the recession in america was the failure of two mortgage lending companies that conservatives had opposed.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Actually there were hundreds and thousands of factors that led to the global recession. There is no such thing as "the recession in america", just the effects of the global recession that are being felt in America.

And once again, I congratulate you on completely ignoring my points and responding with unconvincing rhetoric. Few people have such sheer force of will to be ignorant that when the inherent flaw in their political ideology is exposed, they can simply brush it off with a tangently-related and incorrect point about a different topic to the one we are discussing. Kudos.

 

[Pwnemon]

Well then I could say it this way:

IF WE MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO THEN THERE MAY NOT BE PROBLEMS BUT SINCE WERE ALWAYS FREAKING CHANGING THE STATUS QUO TO TRY AND SOLVE PROBLEMS IT MAY BE THE ROOT OF OUR PROBLEMS ARE YOU HAPPY

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

That's pathetic. The reason the status quo changed in the first place is because the status quo wasn't good enough to deal with certain problems, so society changed in order to overcome these obstacles. If we had maintained the status quo then we wouldn't be having this argument because the fast, long-distance communication we are using right now is a product of change.

 

[nyuu]

IF WE MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO THEN THERE MAY NOT BE PROBLEMS BUT SINCE WERE ALWAYS FREAKING CHANGING THE STATUS QUO TO TRY AND SOLVE PROBLEMS IT MAY BE THE ROOT OF OUR PROBLEMS ARE YOU HAPPY

People enact social change and challenge status quos because they are unhappy. It's not because they're uppity and need to learn to accept society as-is.

For example, I am reasonably sure the black population of America is much happier having challenged the status quo and pressing for the integration of schools. I propose that the fact that things have been done in a particular way is not a justification to keep them that way

What sort of society are you trying to conserve and/or restore?

 

[Tarvos]

The one where his wallet is big and fat.

 

[Dinru]

I think this is a pretty compelling argument for the building of the "Ground Zero Mosque".

And Pwnemon, people change. Societies change. It's what we are, as living creatures. It's what we do. When something isn't good enough, we change it or we change ourselves. It's our nature. Everything and everyone changes constantly; if we all stayed the same forever, we'd still be babies mentally and never take any responsibility, and nothing would ever get done. If societies didn't change, there wouldn't be an America and you'd be reading your Bible in private in fear of the Pagans that would come and prosecute you; and that's if we weren't still a few feral clans in Africa/a few humans near the Garden of Eden/any other potential origin point for the human species. Sure, each change to society can bring on new problems, but it wouldn't change if there weren't problems in the first place.

 

[Automata heart]

I'm so sure that the hookers and porn stores are sooooo respectful. its not a RELIGION that attacked the twin towers, its was EXTREMISTS! plus, its two blocks away. how would you feel if you knew someone Islamic who died in that attack, and now you couldn't pray because some people said it was "disrespectful". Obama said it best. "we are not at war with a religion." people seem to think that the're building this right on-top of the sight. its not. so get over it and let people pray.

 

[1. Luftballon]

it's not even a mosque.

 

[brandman]

People forget, societies change... but memories don't. Just about NO one in the area or United States wants that mosque. To most it seems like the muslims want a holy war. No, we are not at war. But it's like the crusades to us, they didn't want the Christian influence in the Holy Lands. So what am I getting at? Like the Muslims recaptured the lands, some retard will try to blow the mosque to kingdom come.

Some idiot has already tried to blow up a mosque in my area with a car bomb. He, didn't get away with it.

But memories don't change among the mass, it will be passed down, generation to generation, and Muslim hatred within the US will most likely stay for a while.

 

[1. Luftballon]

l2research before dh. and read the thread. it's just the people outside the area who don't want it. the people who actually live there are actually mostly fine with it.

 

[opaltiger]

Just about NO one in the area or United States wants that mosque

Just for the record, the majority of Manhattans support the project.

Also, it is neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero, so I think we should start calling it something else.

 

[1. Luftballon]

I propose calling it the MCC. with capital letters.