• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

B

Bikenut

Guest
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.
 

Bookman

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
1,424
Location
Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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?
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
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?

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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.

You are denying the right of the Imam to respond to public opinion, saying that he must do whatever he wanted, without regard to public opinion. Ya know, he has a right to accede to public opinion, and for that reason, the public should exercise its right to express that opinion.

Your opinion is contradictory of itself.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
You are denying the right of the Imam to respond to public opinion, saying that he must do whatever he wanted, without regard to public opinion. Ya know, he has a right to accede to public opinion, and for that reason, the public should exercise its right to express that opinion.

Your opinion is contradictory of itself.

I am not saying anyone MUST do anything. And I am denying no one anything. The people who are doing the denying are the one's who think that their opinion should have some measure of control over what is a right.

You Sir, have an uncanny ability to look for something in a post that can be twisted into a meaning that isn't there and build on it hoping to engender a contentious argument.

Some people say no one should carry a gun around children because it is their opinion that guns make for an unsafe atmosphere for kids. Implied in that is the expectation that their opinion has some weight and it should have an outcome (measure of control) whether guns are around kids or not. This is gun control. This is public opinion restricting the 2nd Amendment due to social pressure. Of course folks can ignore social pressure when making up their minds whether or not they are willing to accept the problems involved......... but my point is simple.

No opinion has the power to control a right.

That said some people do allow public opinion to sway their decisions concerning exercising a right... and by doing so allow their right to be controlled by those opinions... and reduce a right into a privilege that should be used only where/when public opinion allows it.

And I am dismayed to see people on a 2nd Amendment supporting forum say things similar to (paraphrased from reading this and other threads on the subject):

-Yes the muslims have the right to build a mosque but just because they have the right it isn't the right thing to do. They should be sensitive to the "feelings" (opinions) of the public.

Now.... does that kind of twisted logic strike a chord with anyone in reference to OC?

For the record.... I have my own strong negative feelings and opinions about building a mosque at that site. But my beliefs in rights far outweighs my feelings and opinions... because..

-The United States of America is a Nation built upon rights within a framework of laws inhabited by people.. each of which has an opinion. When opinions make laws that restrict rights we become a Nation ruled by lawmakers opinions.

Either we support all rights regardless of how we feel about them or our personal opinions of them as we demand the right to keep and bear arms... or we are hypocrites.

Having said all that anyone in the selling/building of the mosque process also have the right to not sell, not build, or as someone has mentioned somewhere.... open a topless bar selling ham sandwiches next door to the mosque.

But to say that they have the right to build but they shouldn't exercise that right because we don't like it is exactly the same thing said by anti gunners about guns.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
You are denying the possibility that the Imam could be exercising his freedom if he refuses to accede to public opinion. That position is self-contradictory.

Moving on.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
You are denying the possibility that the Imam could be exercising his freedom if he refuses to accede to public opinion. That position is self-contradictory.

Moving on.

You have the right to your opinion..

You have the right to "move on"..

I fully support both... but I encourage the latter.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
You have the right to your opinion..

You have the right to "move on"..

I fully support both... but I encourage the latter.

I will respond to your encouragement by going one step further. I don't give any credibility (or any of my time) to those who stoop to insults. You could have taken the mature way out, made one last argument, and moved on. Instead, you decided to behave immaturely. What a shame. Your posts (including those in this thread) are usually worth reading.

Welcome to Ignoreland.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
You are denying the possibility that the Imam could be exercising his freedom if he refuses to accede to public opinion. That position is self-contradictory.

Moving on.

He did not deny that at all. You appear to have gone off half-cocked, and missed the wrong target.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
He did not deny that at all. You appear to have gone off half-cocked, and missed the wrong target.

That is precisely what he is saying. He says that it is not a right if someone can be swayed by public opinion. Clearly.

By the way, you won't see me making a snarky comment about you because I disagreed with something you said. One of the reasons I like posting here is the most posters can rip something someone says without commenting on the person. Please don't be part of the minority who always have to make their comments personal.

Moving on.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
I will respond to your encouragement by going one step further. I don't give any credibility (or any of my time) to those who stoop to insults. You could have taken the mature way out, made one last argument, and moved on. Instead, you decided to behave immaturely. What a shame. Your posts (including those in this thread) are usually worth reading.

Welcome to Ignoreland.

And you are trying to use ridicule on a public forum to show me in a bad light in order to prop up your argument just because you disagree with what I typed. Not to mention telling me how to conduct myself during an online discussion.

I was unaware that there was an "eye95 rules for debate" in the forum rules that require making one last argument then conceding when responding to eye95.

I behaved immaturely by not bowing to your opinions? Who is stooping to insults?

But you have every right to not listen to my speech... or read my typed words. Or allow my opinions to be a factor in your decisions to exercise your rights. I fully support that right. In fact... that was what I was saying all along. That opinions, including public opinion, have no power over rights... unless a person allows it to have that power at which point the right no longer exists because it has become a privilege subject to the controls imposed by the opinions of others.

And I have the right to have encouraged your "moving on". You have the right to ignore my encouragement.

Rights are funny that way.... sometimes we must acknowledge a right we personally do not agree with as still being a right. If we do not then we are being hypocritical.

By the way... just my personal opinion... being on your ignore list is not the punishment that you seem to think it is..... I consider it a compliment.
 

crisisweasel

Newbie
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
265
Location
Pima County, Arizona, USA
For a bunch of armed guys who really want to make the point that civilization and arms do mix, way too many threads on this forum descend into abusive exchanges.

It is as if people need to save face by having the last word.

Other than not making personal attacks to begin with, which is explicitly mentioned in the forum rules, what can we do to reduce these incidents?

I'm going to suggest this. Compare:

[a] You're a complete jackass and I'm sick of reading your posts. Why do you come in here to troll?

What you posted really made me angry, and I want you to understand why.

Can we go with B? I am kind of flustered about the fact that I'm on a lot of far more contentious forums with people of radically opposed political opinions and a lot of those don't devolve into personal abuse anywhere near as often as this forum does.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
For a bunch of armed guys who really want to make the point that civilization and arms do mix, way too many threads on this forum descend into abusive exchanges.

It is as if people need to save face by having the last word.

Other than not making personal attacks to begin with, which is explicitly mentioned in the forum rules, what can we do to reduce these incidents?

I'm going to suggest this. Compare:

[a] You're a complete jackass and I'm sick of reading your posts. Why do you come in here to troll?

What you posted really made me angry, and I want you to understand why.

Can we go with B? I am kind of flustered about the fact that I'm on a lot of far more contentious forums with people of radically opposed political opinions and a lot of those don't devolve into personal abuse anywhere near as often as this forum does.

Excellent observation.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
For a bunch of armed guys who really want to make the point that civilization and arms do mix, way too many threads on this forum descend into abusive exchanges.

It is as if people need to save face by having the last word.

Other than not making personal attacks to begin with, which is explicitly mentioned in the forum rules, what can we do to reduce these incidents?

I'm going to suggest this. Compare:

[a] You're a complete jackass and I'm sick of reading your posts. Why do you come in here to troll?

What you posted really made me angry, and I want you to understand why.

Can we go with B? I am kind of flustered about the fact that I'm on a lot of far more contentious forums with people of radically opposed political opinions and a lot of those don't devolve into personal abuse anywhere near as often as this forum does.


What a jackass!!!!

Just kidding couldn't help myself. Good points, I'll go with B.
 
Top