ADL Statement on Ground Zero Mosque

[The Bleeding Roses]

Canadai, did you really have to go out of your way to make that post look obnoxious? I mean honestly... you aren't doing anything to further your cause.

[Katganistan]

Also, you Americans are hypocrites. You go on about how you don't want foreign cultures in your country, you don't want foreign religions there, etc. when you've been throwing your weight across the world to make everyone else follow your idea of democracy and freedom.

Hey, not all of us are like that, please don't generalize.

[The Bleeding Roses]

Because we know, when someone attacks your nation *coughJAPANcough* the best thing to do is deny xxxx-American citizens rights.

Thank you, you finally GET IT.

READ THE NEXT FUCKING LINE AFTER THAT.

TAB KEY. PRESS THE ONE BELOW IT.


(caps lock)

[Katganistan]

Also, the mosque is not being built at Ground Zero, although there are those who want people to believe that.

It's two fucking blocks away. Same deal.

If there was a fire two houses away, would it be the same as if it were your house burning?

[Seculartopia]

Also, you Americans are hypocrites. You go on about how you don't want foreign cultures in your country, you don't want foreign religions there, etc. when you've been throwing your weight across the world to make everyone else follow your idea of democracy and freedom.

Several are guilty of that, but we arent all in favor of that, as Kat said.

[The Bleeding Roses]

Canadai, did you really have to go out of your way to make that post look obnoxious? I mean honestly... you aren't doing anything to further your cause.

That was one post that was not getting skipped over.

Have you considered that people are skipping over your posts because of their quality, not because of their text size and color?

[Sun Aut Ex]

READ THE NEXT FUCKING LINE AFTER THAT.

I chose not to. You were right until you became sarcastic. Efface the sarcasm and we have something we can work with.

[Galiria]

READ THE NEXT FUCKING LINE AFTER THAT.

I chose not to. You were right until you became sarcastic. Efface the sarcasm and we have something we can work with.

Sooo, he has to change his opinions to match yours before you'll agree with him?

Nice, you have completely failed once more.

[The Bleeding Roses]

READ THE NEXT FUCKING LINE AFTER THAT.

I chose not to. You were right until you became sarcastic. Efface the sarcasm and we have something we can work with.

Sooo, he has to change his opinions to match yours before you'll agree with him?

Nice, you have completely failed once more.

How is that failing? Agreeing with something one disagrees with would be failing, not agreeing with something you agree with.

[Sun Aut Ex]

Ok. Here's a better line.

IT'S A REALLY BAD IDEA DO DENY RIGHTS TO PEOPLE BECAUSE SOMEONE OF SIMILAR IDEOLOGY CAUSED HARM TO YOUR NATION.

I disagree.

[The Bleeding Roses]

READ THE NEXT FUCKING LINE AFTER THAT.

I chose not to. You were right until you became sarcastic. Efface the sarcasm and we have something we can work with.

Ok. Here's a better line.

IT'S A REALLY BAD IDEA DO DENY RIGHTS TO PEOPLE BECAUSE SOMEONE OF SIMILAR IDEOLOGY CAUSED HARM TO YOUR NATION.

ONCE AGAIN, TYPING IN ALL CAPS SPEAKS MORE ABOUT YOU AS A POSTER THAN YOUR POST AS IT RELATES TO THE THREAD

[Galiria]

READ THE NEXT FUCKING LINE AFTER THAT.

I chose not to. You were right until you became sarcastic. Efface the sarcasm and we have something we can work with.

Sooo, he has to change his opinions to match yours before you'll agree with him?

Nice, you have completely failed once more.

How is that failing? Agreeing with something one disagrees with would be failing, not agreeing with something you agree with.

No, but he appears to be refusing to argue sensibly or take into account Canadai's posts and points until Canadai agrees with him. In my books that's failing at the whole 'debate' thing.

[Seculartopia]

READ THE NEXT FUCKING LINE AFTER THAT.

I chose not to. You were right until you became sarcastic. Efface the sarcasm and we have something we can work with.

Sooo, he has to change his opinions to match yours before you'll agree with him?

Nice, you have completely failed once more.

How is that failing? Agreeing with something one disagrees with would be failing, not agreeing with something you agree with.

Actually hes still failed by not really putting any justification behind why he feels that action should take place, when those that disagree have done so.

[Karsol]

Ok. Here's a better line.

IT'S A REALLY BAD IDEA DO DENY RIGHTS TO PEOPLE BECAUSE SOMEONE OF SIMILAR IDEOLOGY CAUSED HARM TO YOUR NATION.

I disagree.

Why not deny right to Christians then? SInce they have engaged in Genocide (Native Americans) Terrorism and Murder.

since one bomb carrying nutjob seems to represent an entire religion...

[Seculartopia]

Ok. Here's a better line.

IT'S A REALLY BAD IDEA DO DENY RIGHTS TO PEOPLE BECAUSE SOMEONE OF SIMILAR IDEOLOGY CAUSED HARM TO YOUR NATION.

I disagree.

Why not deny right to Christians then? SInce they have engaged in Genocide (Native Americans) Terrorism and Murder.

Ban them from the American West, lets also while we are at it deny rights to Caucasians,Males,and European Immigrants.....

(Getting to a subjective opinion that one desires as law, yet?)

[Cynthia McKinney]

The ADL should be renamed The Defamation League cause all they do is engage in defamation and hate speech. They label everyone who criticizes Israel as an anti-semite.

[The Bleeding Roses]

READ THE NEXT FUCKING LINE AFTER THAT.

I chose not to. You were right until you became sarcastic. Efface the sarcasm and we have something we can work with.

Sooo, he has to change his opinions to match yours before you'll agree with him?

Nice, you have completely failed once more.

How is that failing? Agreeing with something one disagrees with would be failing, not agreeing with something you agree with.

No, but he appears to be refusing to argue sensibly or take into account Canadai's posts and points until Canadai agrees with him. In my books that's failing at the whole 'debate' thing.

I think you need to regrasp the concept of debate. Debate is about putting forth your side, not about appeasing the other side.

[Katganistan]

Also, the mosque is not being built at Ground Zero, although there are those who want people to believe that.

It's two fucking blocks away. Same deal.

No, it's not. Because the own the property, and have the right to do with it as they please.

Say I own a piece of property with a river running through it. Do you assert that I have the right to damn it up causing a lake to form upstream of my property and a lack of water downstream of my property?

Depends on the laws of your state. [url=

In Kansas, yes, absolutely.It’s private property

Many people assume they are entitled to river access, but the rivers and dams are on private property. They are breaking the law. There are only three public rivers in Kansas – the Kansas, the Arkansas and the Missouri rivers. All other rivers are on privately owned land. This is different from many other states.

In 1990 the State Supreme Court determined that landowners own the land to the midpoint of the stream and that they also control the use of that water.

But we're not talking about damming rivers, we're talking about people who are already building within the zoning laws. Can we stop with the ridiculous diversions?

[Katganistan]

Ok, so what's the argument again?

People like you are allowed people like this:



to live in the West, whereas anybody with real guts to say it how it is would be quite happy to see them shot out of a cannon and into the ocean.

anybody with real guts= fearful, hate-filled murderous bigots?

[Seculartopia]

READ THE NEXT FUCKING LINE AFTER THAT.

I chose not to. You were right until you became sarcastic. Efface the sarcasm and we have something we can work with.

Sooo, he has to change his opinions to match yours before you'll agree with him?

Nice, you have completely failed once more.

How is that failing? Agreeing with something one disagrees with would be failing, not agreeing with something you agree with.

No, but he appears to be refusing to argue sensibly or take into account Canadai's posts and points until Canadai agrees with him. In my books that's failing at the whole 'debate' thing.

I think you need to regrasp the concept of debate. Debate is about putting forth your side, not about appeasing the other side.

And by refusing to look at anything the other side says seems to say that Sun Aut Ex wants appeased.

[Galiria]

READ THE NEXT FUCKING LINE AFTER THAT.

I chose not to. You were right until you became sarcastic. Efface the sarcasm and we have something we can work with.

Sooo, he has to change his opinions to match yours before you'll agree with him?

Nice, you have completely failed once more.

How is that failing? Agreeing with something one disagrees with would be failing, not agreeing with something you agree with.

No, but he appears to be refusing to argue sensibly or take into account Canadai's posts and points until Canadai agrees with him. In my books that's failing at the whole 'debate' thing.

I think you need to regrasp the concept of debate. Debate is about putting forth your side, not about appeasing the other side.

Really? I was always taught a debate is when you put forth your side, why you think this, and here's your proof, then the other side does the same and you argue about whose side is better. Sun Aut Ex seems to think making baseless accusation against all Muslims needs no proof, therefore in my book he fails at debating.

[Seculartopia]

READ THE NEXT FUCKING LINE AFTER THAT.

I chose not to. You were right until you became sarcastic. Efface the sarcasm and we have something we can work with.

Sooo, he has to change his opinions to match yours before you'll agree with him?

Nice, you have completely failed once more.

How is that failing? Agreeing with something one disagrees with would be failing, not agreeing with something you agree with.

No, but he appears to be refusing to argue sensibly or take into account Canadai's posts and points until Canadai agrees with him. In my books that's failing at the whole 'debate' thing.

I think you need to regrasp the concept of debate. Debate is about putting forth your side, not about appeasing the other side.

Debate is about logically talking about two things, not randomly bashing your ideals like a club and ignoring anything that apposes it.

At least the other side could present some substantial justification for such a radical policy.

[The Bleeding Roses]

READ THE NEXT FUCKING LINE AFTER THAT.

I chose not to. You were right until you became sarcastic. Efface the sarcasm and we have something we can work with.

Sooo, he has to change his opinions to match yours before you'll agree with him?

Nice, you have completely failed once more.

How is that failing? Agreeing with something one disagrees with would be failing, not agreeing with something you agree with.

No, but he appears to be refusing to argue sensibly or take into account Canadai's posts and points until Canadai agrees with him. In my books that's failing at the whole 'debate' thing.

I think you need to regrasp the concept of debate. Debate is about putting forth your side, not about appeasing the other side.

And by refusing to look at anything the other side says seems to say that Sun Aut Ex wants appeased.

Which wouldn't make the post any more valid...
The poster that appeases fails in a debate, not the one seeking appeasement. It's a pretty safe bet to say that all parties wish to be appeased.

[Katganistan]

Right, how often does that happen, again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws ... n_violence

[Seculartopia]

READ THE NEXT FUCKING LINE AFTER THAT.

I chose not to. You were right until you became sarcastic. Efface the sarcasm and we have something we can work with.

Sooo, he has to change his opinions to match yours before you'll agree with him?

Nice, you have completely failed once more.

How is that failing? Agreeing with something one disagrees with would be failing, not agreeing with something you agree with.

No, but he appears to be refusing to argue sensibly or take into account Canadai's posts and points until Canadai agrees with him. In my books that's failing at the whole 'debate' thing.

I think you need to regrasp the concept of debate. Debate is about putting forth your side, not about appeasing the other side.

And by refusing to look at anything the other side says seems to say that Sun Aut Ex wants appeased.

Which wouldn't make your post any more valid...
The poster that appeases fails in a debate, not the one seeking appeasement. It's a pretty safe bet to say that all parties wish to be appeased.

But a person does fail in debate when they cannot match justifications with the other side.

Theres been links, standing arguments, and examples, and so far the only justification ive seen is a single picture thats already been very challenged.