Obama supports Ground Zero mosque. Religious freedom or is he being too PC?

quote:

---

(Not my material)

---

What's next? An anyeurism if he keeps it up.No, it is nothing like any of those things. Hitler was the cause of Auschwitz. Islam did not cause the terrorist attacks. GWB destroyed Baghdad. Islam did not destroy the towers. And there is a sushi place not too far from Pearl Harbor.I guess the Muslim families who lost their loved ones in the terrorist attacks don't count for anything. What's that? Not everybody who died who died in the towers was non-Muslim? Actual Muslims were killed? How can that be? Everybody knows there aren't any Muslims in the United States let alone New York State or New York City and none of them ever worked in the World Trade Center. Everybody knows that they were warned about the attacks at least if not actually carrying out interference to prevent rescue workers from responding. There certainly weren't any Muslims among the rescue workers.And because of that, there shouldn't ever be any locations where Muslims gather in the United States anywhere.This has nothing to do with "insulting gestures." It is plain bigotry, pure and simple.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

ringo writes:

quote:

---

My guess is that any new mosque in Colorado or Florida will have at least one idiot making the same complaint that it's an insult to 9-11 victims.

---

Your wish is granted. There's a mosque being built in Temecula, CA (just outside of San Diego, nearly 3000 miles from New York) that is being protested due to its "terrorist" implications (because any time two Muslims get together, they're plotting jihad, doncha know.)

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

slevesque writes:

quote:

---

If terrorist christians had stunned an entire nation by killing thousands of people all at once, (in other words, an analog situation), then Mr. Jack's analogy would have been useable.

---

You mean you've forgotten about Timothy McVeigh? The largest terrorist act the country had ever seen was carried out by a Christian on somewhat religious grounds.Christians seem to forget about all of the terrorist acts they carry out:Waco
Atlanta Olympics bombing
Tiller murder
LA Jewish Community Center shootingOh...and then there was that whole Holocaust thing, the genocide of the American Indians, slavery, the invasion of Iraq by the United States, etc.Yeah, Christians never carry out terrorist acts in the name of their god.

slevesque writes:

quote:

---

Priestly celibacy is not the issue - married men are more likely to abuse children than unmarried

​

Most child abuse takes place within the home.

---

You don't see any connection between those two? The reason married people (not just men) are more likely to abuse children than unmarried people is due to the access to the child. When the child you are going to abuse is sleeping in the room down the hall, it's much easier to carry it out than if you have to have a parent give you their child.It's why though it is true that girls are more likely to be the victim of sexual abuse overall, when it comes to touching by someone that isn't the parent of the child, it's boys who are more likely to be victims. Why? Because we as a society don't have a problem with leaving our boys alone with other adults. Girls, however, tend to get looked after more.

quote:

---

Most of the cases of euphebophilia are homosexual in nature

---

Incorrect. While they tend to be between men and boys, they are not "homosexual" beyond a simplistic counting of penises and vaginas.

quote:

---

however the politically correct do not want this problem to be associated with homosexuality.

---

Incorrect. Instead, they have asked the abusers themselves whether or not they consider themselves gay or straight and the overwhelming majority of them identify as straight. It is because they cannot handle a relationship with a mature person of the opposite sex that they go for the androgyny of a younger person.The real issue with the Catholic church's sex scandal isn't so much that it happened so much as it is the coverup that ran rampant within the Church: The refusal to bring any sort of punishment upon those who were found out to be abusing children, the shuttling of abusers from one diocese to another where they could find fresh meat, the refusal to notify authorities, etc.There's a retreat just outside Albuquerque where I used to live that was used as a "treatment center" for priests caught abusing kids where they were kept for a while and then shipped out again. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

bluescat48 writes:

quote:

---

Some Muslims are Arabs, but some Muslims are Persians, Pakistanis, Bengalis, Malaysians and several groups from Africa South of the Sahara.

---

In fact, most Muslims aren't Arabs. Indonesia is the largest group.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

onifre writes:

quote:

---

We've seen it censored on TV

---

There's that word "censored," again.No, you haven't seen in censored. Not in any way, shape, or form. Censorship is governmental restriction of speech. The government did not get involved in any decision by Comedy Central to refuse to show the South Park episode that had Mohammed in it.Do not confuse corporate spinelessness with censorship.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

Censorship is not restricted to just the government

---

Yes, it is. If it isn't being done by the government, it isn't censorship. Your freedom of speech does not give you the right to say anything anywhere. If you're sitting in a movie theatre and continue to talk throughout the showing, the owners of the theatre have every right to kick you out and prevent you from sharing your wit and wisdom with the rest of the audience.That isn't censorship. Despite the fact that they may be running The Rocky Horror Picture Show at the time and thus are expecting audience participation, you do not have a right to spout absolutely anything you want in that space. The government isn't restricting your rights and it isn't censorship.

quote:

---

many news, radio and TV stations censor material that they don't want aired.

---

In the common-use sense of "censor," yes. But just as "theory" doesn't mean the same thing when used in a discussion of science as it does when used in a general discussion, "censorship" does not mean the same thing when used in a discussion of First Amendment rights as it does when used in a general discussion. The "Standards and Practices" department at network studios were often called the "censors," but they were more accurately called the "editors" because that's what they were doing: Exercising editorial control over the content being broadcast through their medium.All media do this, even those that claim to be the most open and free. There are only so many stories that can fit in a given space (be it paper or timeslot) and decisions have to be made about what is going to go in and what is going to be left out. Every choice regarding what story to run with and how to present it is a "censorship" of all the other stories and methods and to go down that road is to make the word "censorship" meaningless.Censorship is the active prevention of speech from ever getting out. That requires governmental activity for they are the only ones able to do so. Stone and Parker don't have to broadcast their shows on Comedy Central. Nobody is stopping them from deciding that the editorial decisions of the network don't match their artistic vision and go elsewhere. They aren't being put in jail, they aren't being arrested, no investigations, no criminal records, nothing.The only thing that happened to them was that the editors, the ones paying for everything, decided that they were going to exercise their editorial control.Is it sad? Yes. Stupid? Of course. Pathetic? Absolutely. And the more people complain to Comedy Central about their ridiculous actions, the more they'll pay attention. Perhaps Stone and Parker should consider moving their show to another network that doesn't have such a weak constitution.

quote:

---

But the corporate spinelessness resulted in Trey and Matt being censored by Comedy Central.

---

Incorrect. The corporate spinelessness resulted in Stone and Parker being edited by Comedy Central.That's their job. They own the network, they are responsible for everything that gets broadcast over their network and thus, since Parker and Stone aren't the ones paying for the use of Comedy Central's network, they get to exert editorial control over the content that gets broadcast.Question: Do you think Parker and Stone should be able to broadcast anything and Comedy Central should simply accept it and send it out without question? Does Comedy Central have no ability to tell the producers of content, "We won't show that"? If not, if you think they do have the right to exert editorial control, then what makes you think there's a line for which Comedy Central cannot cross? It's their network. They're the ones paying for it and he who pays the piper calls the tune. If Parker and Stone don't like it, they can go somewhere else. Nobody is censoring them.

quote:

---

Granted, it wasn't the government doing it, but I think that would still be considered censorship.

​

At least that's what the news called it.

---

Right, because the popular news is always getting technical terms right and using them correctly. They'd never describe evolution as something for which there is a "controversy" in science, pointing out that a "theory" in science means it is a highly justified conclusion based upon all of the available evidence that is capable of making predictions that turn out to be true. They'll always point out that there is no "debate" over global warming and they've gone out of their way to retract all of those stories about the emails from the University of East Anglia and point out that the emails actually showed support for anthropogenic climate change.Yeah, the popular media never overinflates stories in order to attract viewership, describing every event in the most hyperventilated terms lest somebody think that the world isn't going to end and possibly change the channel.It isn't censorship.Yes, Comedy Central wouldn't broadcast what Parker and Stone wanted to. They don't have to. They own the network and their editorial decisions rule. If Parker and Stone don't like it, they can always go somewhere else. Nobody is stopping them from publishing their work.They just can't use Comedy Central's nickel to do it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

onifre writes [about why the cultural center is "insensitive" and/or "arrogant"]:

quote:

---

Because many people feel it is.

---

So? And there are many people who feel that those trying to stop it are "insensitive" and/or "arrogant." Whose feelings are we going to have to trample on in this situation?

quote:

---

I don't agree with Muslims that the prophet shouldn't be shown in an image. But I would be, to some extent, sensitive to their feelings and can understand not showing the image under those conditions

---

Do you seriously not understand the difference between a request not to display an image and a request not to build a building? Let me see if I can provide other examples to help you see the difference:You're thinking of discussing a movie. Should do so in the theatre during the movie? If your neighbor tells you to please be quiet and not interrupt, is that reasonable? Suppose you wait until after and talk with your friends at the cafe next door. You're sitting at a table and your neighbors say that they're about to see the movie you're talking about and ask you to please not discuss it lest it be "ruined" for them. Is that reasonable?In the former case, the people watching the movie don't have anywhere else to go. Oh, there are other theatres in town, but this is the place where they bought their tickets and it is non-trivial for them to go somewhere else in order to get away from you. You, on the other hand, have the ability to hold your tongue for a bit so that the people who want to see this performance at this sole location can achieve that goal.But in the latter case, it's the reverse. A cafe is supposed to be a place where people go to talk with friends. And having one right next to a movie theatre is practically demanding that the clientele will be discussing the movies that are displaying on the other side of the shared wall. If this other person doesn't want to hear discussions about movies, they shouldn't be hanging around in a place where that is likely to be the topic of conversation.In this case, the Muslims own the building. It is non-trivial to have them move "somewhere else." In fact, it seems to be the case that there isn't anywhere they could possibly move without somebody complaining. And as it has been pointed out, there's already a full-blown mosque just a few blocks away that nobody is complaining about. And as it has also been pointed out, the idea that this place is "within sight" of "Ground Zero" is silly: The buildings in New York City are so tall that you couldn't see it from there no matter how hard you tried.And in a public situation like a business district, especially in such a large and diverse location as Manhattan, you'd expect to find a place of worship nearby.Those complaining about a gathering place that happens to have a room for Muslims to worship in (for this isn't a mosque by any stretch of the imagination) are akin to those complaining about the people in a cafe talking about a movie.Compare this to a picture of Mohammed. Is there really something in your life that requires you to be displaying your picture around? Here? Now? Maybe. Those who insist that you never, ever display a picture no matter what are going too far, but there is something to be said about being aware of time and place and practicing etiquette such that you don't deliberately antagonize people. You don't discuss the movie in the middle of the theatre when everybody else is watching it.

quote:

---

since the US, at least it's media, hasn't ever shown the image

---

Incorrect. That's part of Parker and Stone's reaction regarding Comedy Central: They've already shown Mohammed. He was a character in the "Super Best Friends" episode as well as appearing in the opening credits for a season. They were showing him all the time up until recently. Comedy Central suddenly lost their nerve.

quote:

---

Shouldn't they too...extend the same courtesy?

---

To an extent, yes. Building a gathering place that happens to have a room that Muslims can use for their prayer sessions is not a deliberate act of incitement no matter how many people receive it that way. The way it has been described to hang a picture of Mohammed directly across from it is a deliberate act of incitement (and I hesitate to use that word since "incitement" tends to imply justification for violent retribution and that isn't what I'm getting at...it's certainly an example of somebody being a prick, but such a thing seems deliberately designed to get a rise out of someone in order to play faux victim.)Edited by Rrhain, : Dropped a "not": Building a gathering place...is *NOT* a deliberate act of incitement.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Coyote writes:

quote:

---

It's all about symbolism.

---

Indeed.But we must remember that just because it is a symbol for you doesn't mean it is the same symbol for anybody else.Go to Japan and other places in the Far East and you'll see swastikas everywhere. But they don't mean the same thing as they do over here. The swastika is an Asian symbol of luck.Who gets to decide what the symbol means? Don't the people who are actively using it get to have a say?

quote:

---

There was the symbolism of Arabs dancing in the streets when the towers were destroyed.

---

Combined with the fact that the video you saw was heavily edited in order to manipulate you into a particular vision. So are you really sure that your "symbol" truly exists?

quote:

---

Now there is the symbolism of building a mosque on the same location.

---

Incorrect.First, it isn't "the same location."Second, it isn't a mosque.Third, there is an actual mosque already in the area that nobody seems to mind.

quote:

---

How is it that you can't see this?

---

Because just because you see it doesn't mean it is actually there. Nobody is denying your feelings. What is being denied is your justification of those feelings.

quote:

---

And are so insensitive toward those who can?

---

Because in a conflict between people, somebody is going to come away not getting what they want. That's why we have things like etiquette and the law to look to in order to mediate these disputes such that we can, hopefully, achieve a path that allows everyone not to necessarily be happy but reduce the amount of conflict as much as possible.And if we're going to deny the building of a community space space that also has a room that Muslims can use to pray, then how are you going to defend the construction of your pet project based upon unjustifiable bigotry on the part of a tiny minority?Only bigots get to define civilized behaviour?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

onifre writes:

quote:

---

These are their feelings, they should be respected, right?

---

Huh? What on earth does respecting someone's feelings have to do with acceding to their demands? In a conflict, somebody is going to come away without getting what they wanted. What about the feelings of those trying to build the center? Shouldn't their feelings be respected?Whose feelings get to be trampled upon because it's going to have to be somebody. We have etiquette and the law not because we expect to be able to make everybody happy. Instead, we have them so that we can reduce conflict as much as possible and have a consistent way in which conflicts are resolved. Somebody is going to have to suck it up and get over it.Who should it be?

quote:

---

We respect the feelings of Muslims who don't want their prophet shown

---

Who is this "we" you're referring to?

quote:

---

they can't seem to extend the same courtesy to those who feel offended.

---

Who is this "they" are you're referring to?

quote:

---

But I am also for freedom of speech, which is something the American media has shit on when it comes to showing the prophet.

---

Incorrect.Nobody's First Amendment rights have been violated. Not in any way, shape, or form.You do not have the right to publish your speech using my money. If I'm the one paying for it, I have every right to say no. If you don't like it, find your own money to spread your message.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

But I was just using the terms that Matt and Trey used.

---

And we all know that they would never wander into the realm of hyperbole in order to make their point.

quote:

---

My only point was that they did edit the episode for what they claimed was fear of offending.

---

Which they have every right to do and we want them to have that right. It helps us know where we can find the content we're looking for. The downside to that is that it means that sometimes the creators of content who felt assured that their vision was fully supported by the patron is going to have that patron say no. It's been going on for as long as there have been artists and patrons.This was the same fight that happens every single week in every single program. I just finished a production of Arsenic and Old Lace and it is a piece of its time: 1941. We talk about "Japs." There's also a "chink" thrown in for good measure. So there's the question of do we go with what was written or do we recognize that times have changed and try to determine if there's a way to give the same result that doesn't include distracting baggage that comes along through the use of the language.Personally, the "Japs" references make sense. They all come out of the mouth of a character who thinks he's Teddy Roosevelt. And consider that the play is set in September of 1941, temporal consistency indicates that finding Roosevelt making disparaging comments about the Japanese is hardly out of place.But the "chink" line comes completely out of the blue. An aspiring playwright is describing the plot of his play. There is no set up or other contextual justification for it. The only thing to support it is that the play seems to be a hard-boiled detective theme and given the way such novels were written at the time, "chink" in and of itself isn't such a bizarre description. But even so, that word in its context is still nothing more than an insult.In the end, we decided not to do anything. We trusted our audience to understand that this play is 70 years old, is period, and not make a big deal of it. Somebody might be offended, but we were willing to live with that. Know your audience.Note, sometimes you can't win: The Fantasticks has a song where the fathers are trying to get one's son and the other's daughter together and they have hired El Gallo to come and stage a scene where the daughter is in danger of being carried away and the son rescues her and thus, the two can get together. El Gallo describes the various scenarios he can do: Many theatres can't handle that. Even though the leading dialogue makes it very clear that by "rape," they mean the classical meaning of the word, abduction, rather than the modern version of sexual assault. The longest running musical of all time and most theatres know that their audiences won't be able to survive four-and-a-half minutes where every tenth word is "rape." So when we did it, I was told to sing "raid" and "abduction" in place of "rape." I didn't like it, but I wanted to do the part.Somebody wrote into the newspaper to complain that we were too chicken to do it legit. There will always be somebody who doesn't like the way you try to thread the needle.Somebody is going to come away unhappy. Whose sensibilities are you willing to trample on?

quote:

---

I was trying to show how some consider offending Muslims and edit episodes, but Muslims, in this case of the mosque, have not considered not building the mosque when they are offending many people.

---

First, it isn't a mosque.Second, what makes you think they haven't considered it? I see you are employing your super power of mind reading again. I'm still fascinated by how you do it and wish you would tell me what it's like when you read other people's minds.

quote:

---

Neither I feel is right or wrong, I was just showing the comparison.

---

Your comparison is false for it is based upon things that aren't true as well as assuming facts not in evidence.You may personally not care which way it goes, but the question put to you is how do we as a society manage these conflicts? There isn't any way to make everybody happy. Somebody is going to go away without something they want.How do we decide who is going to be sad?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

I think there will be people on both sides who will ultimately feel offended.

---

Nice try. That's my point to you.My question is for you to tell us how we make the decision.

quote:

---

They're both request made based on offending

---

Huh? They're building this community center specifically to offend somebody? This is exactly the same as deliberately displaying an image of Mohammed across the street from it?You are confusing somebody taking offense with somebody giving offense. They are not the same thing.

quote:

---

if one side is recognized more than the other, it can, even just on the surface, seem a bit one sided.

---

Right, because Muslims are so dominant in US society. That's why everything is shut down on Fridays and you have to find pork products in the "Ethnic Christian" section of the supermarket. Everybody knows that we elected a Muslim for president because the country is filled with them. We live in a post-Christian world here in the US. They are so put upon and downtrodden.

quote:

---

I find it irrational for Muslims to ask Americans to not show images of their prophet

---

Who are these "Muslims" you are referring to?

quote:

---

Lets just acknowledge that it has happend

---

No, let's not. It is extremely important to understand just who it is that made such a request. Not all requests are created equally. The mere existence of such a request is of very little substance and doesn't really help us analyze this particular scenario. Just as we don't care what people who don't have any understanding of climatology have to say about the state of the science with regard to climate change, to harp on what some crazy people have to say is just as ridiculous.By your logic, we should "teach the controversy" in biology class and let "intelligent design" and omphalism and every other cockamamie idea for how the diversity of life came into being suck up all the time we have.[Hint: If that isn't what you meant, then you need to explain how your insistence that we "just acknowledge" it does not lead to insisting that we "just acknowledge" other stupid things that people say.]

quote:

---

But if we're going to respect the irrational requests of one, it's only fair we respect the irrational requests of the other side.

---

Who is this "we" you're referring to? I've asked you that more than once. It would be nice if you answered my question.

quote:

---

Or... fuck everyone's sensitive issues, get over it, and expect to be offended plenty in life. Which is how I see it.

---

Now, that isn't exactly true, now, is it?The people who are the most vocal about how they "don't stand on ceremony" and eschew the rituals of etiquette are the ones who scream the loudest the moment they get offended.Everybody follows etiquette. It's how society works. There has to be an understood way for people to relate to each other in order for us to get beyond distrusting everybody and living in a perpetual state of fear that the other person is out to get you.You will note that nobody who is denigrating the protesters have said one word about how they shouldn't be allowed to protest. We've said that they are stupid to do so, yes, but not that their offensive behaviour somehow needs to be suppressed. Oh, we think they "shouldn't" protest, but based upon the merits of their claim, not out of some desire not to be offended. If they go ahead and build the community center there (it is not a mosque...the mosque is a couple blocks away and nobody seems to mind), everybody understands that the people using it are going to have to put up with idiots exercising their right to be idiots in public. It's offensive, but that's the price we pay.Strangely, the other side doesn't seem to understand that. They want to be able to piss and moan and ruin everybody's life simply because they can't handle the prospect of not paying attention to something that doesn't affect them.But I forget...according to you, those are the same thing.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

onifre responds to nwr:

quote:

---

quote:

---

How do you know that this will be "offending many people"? Maybe it is just political theater, and relatively few people will really be offended.

---

​

That is a possibility, since I am just going by what the media is broadcasting.

---

Oh, so you didn't do any homework to allow yourself to be knowledgeable about the subject before you opened your yap.Would it surprise you to learn that the majority of people who actually live in New York City and thus would actually be affected by it support the building of the center?Who are these "many people" you're referring to?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Tram law responds to me:

quote:

---

How exactly are people being affected by the center besides just feeling insulted?

---

It's physically in their neighborhood. A building in New York City doesn't have much effect, if any, upon me here in San Diego. But having new construction down here by Qualcomm Stadium is going to affect me.There are mosques in Manhattan that are popular enough that there is not enough room for everyone. They spill out onto the street and can cause traffic problems during prayer times.

quote:

---

Does it cause mental harm? Cause people to become unhinged in some way?

---

Self-inflicted, it would seem.As we all know, the way to show that we aren't like those who oppress religious expression and faith is to, you know, oppress religious expression and faith.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

What I support is that whatever gets decided, gets done fairly.

---

And thus, you show how you keep avoiding the question: I am asking you directly how you would determine it be done "fairly."Somebody, possibly everybody, is going to come away without getting what they want. How do we decide who is going to be sad?

quote:

---

Either it's all good to do, say and express, or none of it is.

---

That makes no sense at all. Does context have no affect on how one decides if something is fair? All reactions should be automatic and by default with no consideration for specific circumstances that make the individual scenario unique?

quote:

---

I don't care about people's feelings, I care about it being fair game for everyone.

---

You keep saying this but then you show you don't really mean it. Partly by refusing to describe what you mean by "fair" and partly by showing that you think those who disagree with you should "shut the fuck up about it."So which is it? How do we decide who is going to be sad?Be specific.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.