Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43

Thread: "Can" versus "Should"--from mosques to OC

  1. #1
    Regular Member Eeyore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    on the move
    Posts
    558

    "Can" versus "Should"--from mosques to OC

    All the discussion in the national media about the alleged mosque planned for the area near Ground Zero has gotten me thinking. (Anyone who’s ever read one of my posts knows this is dangerous.) Let me begin by saying this isn’t meant as an attack on anyone or any position, though some will probably perceive it as such. I just enjoy a good debate and think self-examination is a healthy thing from time to time.

    Most of the mosque-at-Ground-Zero debate seems to center on the premise that “just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should.” Maybe there’s no legal way to bar building a mosque in NYC, but is it a good idea? Might doing this be counter-productive to the stated goals of the builder? If so, that raises suspicion. Are their stated goals their true goals? Is there some ulterior motive? Might there be side-effects, and are they intended or unintended? This is the crux of the debate.

    We have an identical debate within the OC community: witness the various threads where people urge others to dress conservatively so as not to harm public impressions of the movement. Others angrily reply that they’ll dress as they damn well please. So it’s a variation on the theme. Sure, you can dress however you want while OCing (tacticool, with a bucket over your head, as Batman, or someone from www.peopleofwalmart.com, whatever). But should you? Maybe you don’t care what people think, but will your choice have an impact on public opinion of OCers and OCing? (Not should it, but will it.) What is your true goal, and does your choice of dress advance that goal? Comparing the way you want people to react to the way you reasonably expect them to react will help answer these questions.

    The same goes for behavior: you can make sure everyone knows you’re carrying, loudly proclaim your rights, be confrontational with anti’s and LEOs, and hope to get rich in a lawsuit. But should you? Such behavior may make one feel righteous, but is that the best way to normalize OC? If not, then why do it? Could a self-image of crusader/martyr be more important to you than producing positive results?

    Unfortunately, this argument can be (and has been) used against OC in general. “OK, so it’s legal to open carry. But should you, really?” Stated another way, “Why are you bucking public convention?” I think everyone needs to have a good, rational answer to this question. “Because I can” is the rhetorical equivalent of “In your face!”--it probably won’t advance OC in any meaningful way. Everyone's reasons for OCing will be slightly different, but examining our behavior will show whether the reasons we profess are the real reasons we OC. We need to judge our reasons accurately, because you can be sure others are judging us on our actions.

    I'd better stop...I think I've used up my quota of italics for the month :-)

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    All the discussion in the national media about the alleged mosque planned for the area near Ground Zero has gotten me thinking. (Anyone who’s ever read one of my posts knows this is dangerous.) Let me begin by saying this isn’t meant as an attack on anyone or any position, though some will probably perceive it as such. I just enjoy a good debate and think self-examination is a healthy thing from time to time.

    Most of the mosque-at-Ground-Zero debate seems to center on the premise that “just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should.” Maybe there’s no legal way to bar building a mosque in NYC, but is it a good idea? Might doing this be counter-productive to the stated goals of the builder? If so, that raises suspicion. Are their stated goals their true goals? Is there some ulterior motive? Might there be side-effects, and are they intended or unintended? This is the crux of the debate.

    We have an identical debate within the OC community: witness the various threads where people urge others to dress conservatively so as not to harm public impressions of the movement. Others angrily reply that they’ll dress as they damn well please. So it’s a variation on the theme. Sure, you can dress however you want while OCing (tacticool, with a bucket over your head, as Batman, or someone from www.peopleofwalmart.com, whatever). But should you? Maybe you don’t care what people think, but will your choice have an impact on public opinion of OCers and OCing? (Not should it, but will it.) What is your true goal, and does your choice of dress advance that goal? Comparing the way you want people to react to the way you reasonably expect them to react will help answer these questions.

    The same goes for behavior: you can make sure everyone knows you’re carrying, loudly proclaim your rights, be confrontational with anti’s and LEOs, and hope to get rich in a lawsuit. But should you? Such behavior may make one feel righteous, but is that the best way to normalize OC? If not, then why do it? Could a self-image of crusader/martyr be more important to you than producing positive results?

    Unfortunately, this argument can be (and has been) used against OC in general. “OK, so it’s legal to open carry. But should you, really?” Stated another way, “Why are you bucking public convention?” I think everyone needs to have a good, rational answer to this question. “Because I can” is the rhetorical equivalent of “In your face!”--it probably won’t advance OC in any meaningful way. Everyone's reasons for OCing will be slightly different, but examining our behavior will show whether the reasons we profess are the real reasons we OC. We need to judge our reasons accurately, because you can be sure others are judging us on our actions.

    I'd better stop...I think I've used up my quota of italics for the month :-)
    Can't say I relish the thought of gansta thug wannabe's OC'ing gold plated .50 desert Eagles, but if it's their right I don't have anything to say about it. It's a shame to see how Americans who once took pride in their appearance devolve into "peopleofwalmart". I liked it when gangsters wore a suit and a tie.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  3. #3
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    I feel that ANY religious organization should be able to build ANY sort of "house ow worship" anywhere it can afford, as long as they stay within local building code ordinances, and as long as they are NOT exempted from income, business, and property taxes...

    Someone wants to build a Shinto shrine in Pearl Harbor? If they can afford the real estate, have at it.

    Put up a Pagan Temple to Aphrodite (with all it's traditional celebrations) across the street from Gloria Steinem's house? Knock yourself out.

    Does the Bush family want to build a Temple to Moloch across from the Holocaust Memorial, to commemorate their family's financial contribution to WWII? Build away...

    Just don't give ANY of them tax-free status, because THAT is unconstitutional.

    The 1A uses the same language as the 2A--SHALL NOT--with regards to infringement. I find it perplexing how some of the people who are most adamant about the absolute universality of the 2A tend to "play favorites" with the 1A. They never say "which" God in the Constitution. For all we know (and we know a LOT about some of the weirder beliefs of the Founding Fathers like Franklin) the "God" they were referring to could be Lucifer, or Baphomet, (many FFs were high-level Masons...) or Aqua Buddha or the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all we know...


    As for gang-bangers OCing--sure, if they can legally possess a firearm, they have the same rights as everyone else. Not allowing someone to practice their Constitutional rights because you don;t like their clothes, or their associations, or their beliefs is, on it's face, un-Constitutional.

    But when they break the law using their gun--then let the hammer of justice be swift and sure...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  4. #4
    Regular Member VAopencarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The 'Dena, Mаяуlaпd
    Posts
    2,147
    What's your point?
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

  5. #5
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664
    Quote Originally Posted by VAopencarry View Post
    What's your point?
    OP is re-trolling a locked thread, the the responses your reading are out of context, if you didn't see the original thread.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    I feel that ANY religious organization should be able to build ANY sort of "house ow worship" anywhere it can afford, as long as they stay within local building code ordinances, and as long as they are NOT exempted from income, business, and property taxes...

    Someone wants to build a Shinto shrine in Pearl Harbor? If they can afford the real estate, have at it.

    Put up a Pagan Temple to Aphrodite (with all it's traditional celebrations) across the street from Gloria Steinem's house? Knock yourself out.

    Does the Bush family want to build a Temple to Moloch across from the Holocaust Memorial, to commemorate their family's financial contribution to WWII? Build away...

    Just don't give ANY of them tax-free status, because THAT is unconstitutional.

    The 1A uses the same language as the 2A--SHALL NOT--with regards to infringement. I find it perplexing how some of the people who are most adamant about the absolute universality of the 2A tend to "play favorites" with the 1A. They never say "which" God in the Constitution. For all we know (and we know a LOT about some of the weirder beliefs of the Founding Fathers like Franklin) the "God" they were referring to could be Lucifer, or Baphomet, (many FFs were high-level Masons...) or Aqua Buddha or the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all we know...


    As for gang-bangers OCing--sure, if they can legally possess a firearm, they have the same rights as everyone else. Not allowing someone to practice their Constitutional rights because you don;t like their clothes, or their associations, or their beliefs is, on it's face, un-Constitutional.

    But when they break the law using their gun--then let the hammer of justice be swift and sure...

    WTF???

    Friday the 13th was days ago...

    I find myself agreeing with Dreamer?

    Actually, I usually do on premise. It's the conspiricy stuff that I find inane.

    Molloch...
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  7. #7
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    OCing while wearing "gangsta" clothes isn't going to make you any louder or more confrontational than OCing in a state like Commifornia, yet most, if not all the posters here encourage the Californians to OC where possible.

  8. #8
    Regular Member frommycolddeadhands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Knob Noster, MO
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    All the discussion in the national media about the alleged mosque planned for the area near Ground Zero has gotten me thinking. (Anyone who’s ever read one of my posts knows this is dangerous.) Let me begin by saying this isn’t meant as an attack on anyone or any position, though some will probably perceive it as such. I just enjoy a good debate and think self-examination is a healthy thing from time to time.

    Most of the mosque-at-Ground-Zero debate seems to center on the premise that “just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should.” Maybe there’s no legal way to bar building a mosque in NYC, but is it a good idea? Might doing this be counter-productive to the stated goals of the builder? If so, that raises suspicion. Are their stated goals their true goals? Is there some ulterior motive? Might there be side-effects, and are they intended or unintended? This is the crux of the debate.

    We have an identical debate within the OC community: witness the various threads where people urge others to dress conservatively so as not to harm public impressions of the movement. Others angrily reply that they’ll dress as they damn well please. So it’s a variation on the theme. Sure, you can dress however you want while OCing (tacticool, with a bucket over your head, as Batman, or someone from www.peopleofwalmart.com, whatever). But should you? Maybe you don’t care what people think, but will your choice have an impact on public opinion of OCers and OCing? (Not should it, but will it.) What is your true goal, and does your choice of dress advance that goal? Comparing the way you want people to react to the way you reasonably expect them to react will help answer these questions.

    The same goes for behavior: you can make sure everyone knows you’re carrying, loudly proclaim your rights, be confrontational with anti’s and LEOs, and hope to get rich in a lawsuit. But should you? Such behavior may make one feel righteous, but is that the best way to normalize OC? If not, then why do it? Could a self-image of crusader/martyr be more important to you than producing positive results?

    Unfortunately, this argument can be (and has been) used against OC in general. “OK, so it’s legal to open carry. But should you, really?” Stated another way, “Why are you bucking public convention?” I think everyone needs to have a good, rational answer to this question. “Because I can” is the rhetorical equivalent of “In your face!”--it probably won’t advance OC in any meaningful way. Everyone's reasons for OCing will be slightly different, but examining our behavior will show whether the reasons we profess are the real reasons we OC. We need to judge our reasons accurately, because you can be sure others are judging us on our actions.

    I'd better stop...I think I've used up my quota of italics for the month :-)
    The short answer: I carry a weapon for self defense reasons. I carry a gun because it is compact, lightweight, and effective. I carry openly because it is easier, more comforatable, and easier to access. Sometimes I conceal carry depending on the weather and where I'm going.

    As far as the mosque, this is the US of A. It's private property, they own it, they can build a mosque if they want. Just because it offends people doesn't make it illegal. In fact, I'd fully support any wise guy who waits until the mosque opens, then purchases the property next door and opens a strip club...called "Shieks", that serves nothing but pork products and beer on the menu. Turnabout is fair play.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by frommycolddeadhands View Post
    As far as the mosque, this is the US of A. It's private property, they own it, they can build a mosque if they want. Just because it offends people doesn't make it illegal. In fact, I'd fully support any wise guy who waits until the mosque opens, then purchases the property next door and opens a strip club...called "Shieks", that serves nothing but pork products and beer on the menu. Turnabout is fair play.
    Now that would be a just development, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone willing to bet against the titty bar getting firebombed first.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  10. #10
    Regular Member Las Vegan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by frommycolddeadhands View Post
    In fact, I'd fully support any wise guy who waits until the mosque opens, then purchases the property next door and opens a strip club...called "Shieks", that serves nothing but pork products and beer on the menu.
    I agree with you, but they should call it "Sheik Your Booty."
    "The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."
    - President James Monroe

  11. #11
    Regular Member frommycolddeadhands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Knob Noster, MO
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    Now that would be a just development, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone willing to bet against the titty bar getting firebombed first.
    GASP! Now who would do such a thing?

  12. #12
    Regular Member Eeyore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    on the move
    Posts
    558
    VAopencarry posted: What's your point?

    My point is that when one lives in a civil society, there will always be conflict between what we can do and what we should do in many areas of our lives. We should be honest with ourselves about whether we're doing something just because we can, or because we should.

    "Without a purpose, nothing should be done." --Marcus Aurelius

    Quote Originally Posted by simmonsjoe View Post
    OP is re-trolling a locked thread, the the responses your reading are out of context, if you didn't see the original thread.
    News to me. Can you back up your accusation? Didn't think so.
    Last edited by Eeyore; 08-18-2010 at 09:51 AM. Reason: formatting

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    The line of deference as to what is appropriate and what is not, is so extended in proportions, that it is impossible to come to any centralized conclusion about what "should" or "Should not" be done.

    The true exercising of liberty would not include such wantonly imposed limitations.

    Do you believe that you have the right to espouse what I should do?
    Do you believe that all people think the same?
    Do you truly believe your "rationality" is superior to that of others?

    Be careful what you place faith in.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    As mentioned, this isn't a question of what 'we' "should" do. That is irrelevant. The "should not" do is possibly relevant.

    What we "should" do is carry for our personal protection as we well. What we "should not" do is make it a "don't scare others by our manner of dress" discussion. As for the mosque? Irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    VAopencarry posted: What's your point?

    My point is that when one lives in a civil society, there will always be conflict between what we can do and what we should do in many areas of our lives. We should be honest with ourselves about whether we're doing something just because we can, or because we should.

    "Without a purpose, nothing should be done." --Marcus Aurelius



    News to me. Can you back up your accusation? Didn't think so.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    Can't say I relish the thought of gansta thug wannabe's OC'ing gold plated .50 desert Eagles, but if it's their right I don't have anything to say about it.
    I like desert eagles too.

  16. #16
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664
    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    VAopencarry posted: What's your point?

    My point is that when one lives in a civil society, there will always be conflict between what we can do and what we should do in many areas of our lives. We should be honest with ourselves about whether we're doing something just because we can, or because we should.

    "Without a purpose, nothing should be done." --Marcus Aurelius



    News to me. Can you back up your accusation? Didn't think so.
    The entire thread was deleted, but you knew that.
    Last edited by simmonsjoe; 08-18-2010 at 12:41 PM.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    inkster, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    150
    some how i think this moqse is a con job, i think it is a play being done on us. soon there will be an anouncement that the group will move the mouqse to another local inoder to show that there the better person here. they bought the building for $4 mill will sellit to the city for 15 mill and the cittyn will give them a 20 mill building

  18. #18
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716
    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    I like desert eagles too.
    Good lord kwik, you've become nothing but a post ***** lately.

    What happened to you (arguably) contributing something?

    To the OP, we have a constitutional right and an obligation to provide protection for ourselves and our families.

    I will be my normal kind self while OCing, but I will not discontinue the practice because my clothes are a little dirty that day.

    A kind and polite person in a suit is no different than the same person in a t-shirt and jeans with tattoos. (I have one and will display it while OCing on occasion. I don't notice any different reactions.)

    The initial reaction may be somewhat different but the impression left is usually the same. That guy didn't do anything wrong and was very polite.

    This is the way I see it anyway.

  19. #19
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    The only con-job here...

    Quote Originally Posted by khicks View Post
    some how i think this moqse is a con job, i think it is a play being done on us. soon there will be an anouncement that the group will move the mouqse to another local inoder to show that there the better person here. they bought the building for $4 mill will sellit to the city for 15 mill and the cittyn will give them a 20 mill building
    ...Is your high school diploma.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    I think the mosque can and should be built. Religious persecution is nothing new. In my City of Brentwood Tennessee I remember in about 1995 when the Mormons wanted to build a temple near four other churches. They were denied. The excuses were many, but the real reason is that the jews and christian groups didn't want them there.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    A right is something that cannot be denied or controlled for it is as natural a possession as your own thoughts.

    But when a right is controlled then it is no longer a right....... it is a privilege controlled by others.

    It doesn't matter what form that control comes in... whether by laws that have to be conformed to... or public opinion that has to be conformed to... when there is any kind of control put upon a right then the right no longer exists and only a privilege subject to the whims of others remains.

    When contemplating whether or not one "should" exercise a right the real question is what consequences is the person willing to deal with.

    And I, for one, do not believe that the opinions of others have any relevance to my rights.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424
    I spent 14 years of my life "supporting and defending" The Constitution of The United States. I support the entire Bill of Rights, whether or not I agree with the use to which they're being put. In fact, it was in mulling over the proposed amendment to outlaw flag burning, back in the early 90s that I came to the conclusion that what I personally prefer isn't what is necessarily right.

    My knee-jerk reaction to having a mosque anywhere near ground zero was a resounding "HELL NO!", but honest reflection led me to realize that opposition to it, barring legal difficulties on their part, is only discrimination. The 1st Amendment doesn't provide for freedom of religions that we approve of. It provides for freedom to worship, or not, as you see fit as long as it doesn't violate existing local, state or federal laws.

    In summary, the mosque/community center MUST be allowed as long as there are no legitimate legal impediments to it. To expect others to respect OUR rights while being denied their own is hypocrisy on a grand scale.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  23. #23
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    thank you bookman, you write the truth!

    I agree 110%

    ps maybe see ya at dennys on saturday
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    A right is something that cannot be denied or controlled for it is as natural a possession as your own thoughts.

    But when a right is controlled then it is no longer a right....... it is a privilege controlled by others.

    It doesn't matter what form that control comes in... whether by laws that have to be conformed to... or public opinion that has to be conformed to... when there is any kind of control put upon a right then the right no longer exists and only a privilege subject to the whims of others remains.

    When contemplating whether or not one "should" exercise a right the real question is what consequences is the person willing to deal with.

    And I, for one, do not believe that the opinions of others have any relevance to my rights.
    Public opinion does not have to be conformed to. One can choose to accede to public opinion or not. That is the essence of Liberty. To imply that members of the public should not have an opinion or that folks should never consider this opinion when exercising their rights is anti-Liberty!

    That being said, it is despicable that the Imam is plowing full-speed ahead despite public opinion. It is his right. However, we have the right to despise him for exercising that right, and to say so, hoping he will change his mind. And, you have the right to say that we shouldn't. See how it works?

  25. #25
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    A right is something that cannot be denied or controlled for it is as natural a possession as your own thoughts.

    But when a right is controlled then it is no longer a right....... it is a privilege controlled by others.

    It doesn't matter what form that control comes in... whether by laws that have to be conformed to... or public opinion that has to be conformed to... when there is any kind of control put upon a right then the right no longer exists and only a privilege subject to the whims of others remains.

    When contemplating whether or not one "should" exercise a right the real question is what consequences is the person willing to deal with.

    And I, for one, do not believe that the opinions of others have any relevance to my rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Public opinion does not have to be conformed to. One can choose to accede to public opinion or not. That is the essence of Liberty. To imply that members of the public should not have an opinion or that folks should never consider this opinion when exercising their rights is anti-Liberty!

    That being said, it is despicable that the Imam is plowing full-speed ahead despite public opinion. It is his right. However, we have the right to despise him for exercising that right, and to say so, hoping he will change his mind. And, you have the right to say that we shouldn't. See how it works?
    Please reread my post... nowhere in there did I say, or even imply, that people do not have a right to an opinion. Kindly read what is said and not what is wished to be seen within my posts.

    I said that rights should not be controlled by opinions. And when a person puts the opinions of others above exercising a right then that right IS being controlled by said opinions through social pressure.

    I am purposefully staying out of the question about the mosque simply because the issue isn't one of rights.... but is all about the emotional opinions of people.

    And I still, and always will, believe that opinions, especially emotion based opinions, have no bearing on exercising rights.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •