Obama's support for Ground Zero Mosque

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Honu

Oh for crying out loud! The point Im making is that even if a person is a member of NMABLA and has never touched a child do you still think you would want their meeting hall in your neighborhood? Prolly not! Just like the people who had relatives and loved one's die at the hand of terrorist Muslims dont want a Mosque so close to what they consider a killing field.
I just dont get how anyone who has a bit of feeling in their person for the people killed at the trade center can see this as not offensive and disrespectfull to the people who lost their lives that day and the hundreds of rescue people who so bravely tried to save them and who are still dying today from all the **** they breathed in during rescue operations.

The point I'm making is that if you're a member of NAMBLA, you're part of a group whose entire purpose is to promote child rape. People who don't support the goals of NAMBLA, aka legalized child rape, don't regularly attend NAMBLA meetings as far as I know, unless there's a secret cabal of them out there that nobody knows about.

So the only way your point makes any sense at all is if you believe all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist supporters, and their connection to the religion by default makes them incapable of not supporting terrorism (which is why the NAMBLA comparison was crap, because their group supports exactly one thing, child rape. Muslims do not support exactly one thing, terrorism) -- and people on this board go out of their way to make sure we know they don't think that. If you believe that, then that's your prerogative, but that's the only way your comparison comes close to working, and I doubt you believe that, so then the comparison doesn't work.

So if these Muslims don't support killing of Americans, don't support terrorism, then your point is a complete toss-out because it makes no sense whatsoever.

It's not that I don't understand the emotional reaction some people have, and I actually somewhat sympathize with it, but the idea that emotion or the threat of attack against this group should somehow make it so that they set up shop elsewhere (which also doesn't avoid vandalism/attack, as my post earlier clearly points out) basically takes away their right to freely practice religion by threat of force, which is rather un-American, which is why the "increased threat of attack against the mosque" line of argument is pisspoor too.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

The point I'm making is that if you're a member of NAMBLA, you're part of a group whose entire purpose is to promote child rape. People who don't support the goals of NAMBLA, aka legalized child rape, don't regularly attend NAMBLA meetings as far as I know, unless there's a secret cabal of them out there that nobody knows about.

So the only way your point makes any sense at all is if you believe all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist supporters, and their connection to the religion by default makes them incapable of not supporting terrorism (which is why the NAMBLA comparison was crap, because their group supports exactly one thing, child rape. Muslims do not support exactly one thing, terrorism) -- and people on this board go out of their way to make sure we know they don't think that. If you believe that, then that's your prerogative, but that's the only way your comparison comes close to working, and I doubt you believe that, so then the comparison doesn't work.

So if these Muslims don't support killing of Americans, don't support terrorism, then your point is a complete toss-out because it makes no sense whatsoever.

It's not that I don't understand the emotional reaction some people have, and I actually somewhat sympathize with it, but the idea that emotion or the threat of attack against this group should somehow make it so that they set up shop elsewhere (which also doesn't avoid vandalism/attack, as my post earlier clearly points out) basically takes away their right to freely practice religion by threat of force, which is rather un-American.

My friend how will you know they dont support some things terroristic? Just so we are clear, you find Nambla offensive even if the members dont touch lil kids, right? But its ok to support a Mosque near ground zero even if the members dont support blowing shyte up?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Honu

My friend how will you know they dont support some things terroristic? Just so we are clear, you find Nambla offensive even if the members dont touch lil kids, right? But its ok to support a Mosque near ground zero even if the members dont support blowing shyte up?

Do you not understand the difference between a religion with many tenets, and a single-issue group whose single issue is child rape?

Of course NAMBLA is offensive, they are concerned with one thing, and that's legalizing the ability to rape children.

This conversation becomes relevant if, and ONLY if, you believe that the Muslim religion is a single-issue group with that one single issue being blowing things up and killing people, thereby making every Muslim a terrorist supporter, and thereby allowing you to paint every Muslim as exactly the same as those who flew planes in the Twin Towers.

If you believe that, then this discussion has a point, and we can talk about that. If you don't believe that, then this is a pointless discussion because you're talking about two wildly different things and pretending they're the same. I can't actually believe that you can even think they're the same thing -- that comparison is absolutely insane for the point you're trying to make, poorly.