Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
Dak
mentat
Not really. I am all for whatever people at a local level want. If a group of local people decide they want lots of government for them, that's fine, because it is quite easy to move and find somewhere else more free/another group more inline with individual preference.
It is also much easier to change things when they get out of hands at a local/smaller level. It is also less likely to get out of hand. I really am not completely against many "socialist" ideas, I am just against them being done at a high/federal level.
It is also much easier to change things when they get out of hands at a local/smaller level. It is also less likely to get out of hand. I really am not completely against many "socialist" ideas, I am just against them being done at a high/federal level.
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
You mean whatever a sufficient majority of voters want. There's nothing more legitimate about the democratic process just because it occurs at a more localized level. What "the people" choose does not confer legitimacy on a goddamn thing.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Dak
mentat
Democratically no, within the confines of a Constitution, yes. At a local level, anyone who would vote against a particular preposition has the option to move to another locale. It's obviously much more complex, but in a nutshell yeah.
If you are advocating anarchy, it's idealistically awesome, and practically impossible and inefficient.
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that some measure is legitimate as long as people could just get out? Nothing morally relevant whatsoever turns on the possibility of exit. So I have no rights at any particular place I choose to live as long as I can leave that place? As far as I'm concerned, that's what an unqualified statement of your view implies. But it's morally counterintuitive and the reasoning behind it is probably highly questionable.
I'd love to see your reasons for thinking that. But no, I'm not actually advocating anarchy and I don't see what relevance it has to the discussion.
Dak
mentat
I am confused as to what your ideal form of government would be then. Are you suggesting governing based on only unanimous decisions?
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
I am saying that certain things should not even be up for a vote. It makes no difference whether the policy in question occurs at the federal level or at a local level. If it's unjustified, I do not see what a vote at the local level could possibly do to make it justified. The difference between you and I is that there are certain things you're not completely opposed to, whereas I am opposed to those same things absolutely. The national/local distinction makes no difference to me in this regard. Maybe I am just more of an extremist nut than you in certain ways.
Dak
mentat
Such as? Or if it's easier list what you would allow for instead of what you wouldn't.
When a desire for freedom and justice makes a person an "extremist", something is wrong (ldo).
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
Such as anything that violates people's rights. The difficult part here is deciding what rights people actually have. But the point I'm making is that if somebody has right X, then a violation of X is unjustified no matter if it's the federal government doing it, or a local government doing it, or people voting on it. I just think that people's rights to the fruits of their labor are more stringent than you do. Either that or you think that the national/local distinction is morally relevant, and I still don't understand why you would think that. The possibility of exit is not sufficient to establish a policy's legitimacy.
I use that term to poke fun at myself, because most people would consider me an extremist/radical/whateverthefuck. I don't actually think of myself as an extremist. I think of my positions as reasonable and I think I could defend most of them fairly adequately. Nothing is wrong here.
Dak
mentat
No, government has nothing to do with my ideas of morality. Morality is something at an individual level. Government is a "necessary evil" to keep people from killing/stealing/raping etc.
It would come down to what is a "right" and what is not. As far as "fruits of labor", the argument must also be made as to how much society/civilization allows for the increase in a person's labor/fruits thereof, and what the "membership fee" to said society/civilization must be.
What I am opposed to regardless of the situation is government owning un-developed land (IE: national parks, etc.) If it doesn't have a specific function (Town Hall/Congress/etc.), it shouldn't be held by the collective.
Well of course, I meant that it's a problem that the majority would consider you/me extremist.
Dak
mentat
Saparmurat_Niyazov
Member
-CC-
Something in My Eye
- Jan 12, 2009
- 3,967
- 800
- 113
Dak
mentat
Badbird
Never banned
Quote:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37132
Why There Should Be No Mosques at Ground Zero
by Robert Spencer
05/24/2010
Now that it has been revealed that not one, but two mosques are planned for the area around Ground Zero, the supremacist and triumphalist character of this effort is clearer than ever.
...The placement of mosques throughout Islamic history has been an expression of conquest and superiority over non-Muslims.
Muslims built the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock on the site of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in order to proclaim Islam’s superiority to Judaism.
The Umayyad Mosque in Damascus was built over the Church of St. John the Baptist, and the Hagia Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople was converted into a mosque, to express the superiority of Islam over Christianity.
Historian Sita Ram Goel has estimated that over 2,000 mosques in India were built on the sites of Hindu temples for the same reason.
But the Ground Zero mosque, or mosques, won’t be another example of that Islamic supremacism, will they? After all, the mosque initiative’s organizer, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, has said that the building of the mosque by the World Trade Center site was intended to make “the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.”
...And Ground Zero is not a holy site, so the symbolism of Islam conquering and replacing other religions isn’t there—or is it?
The Twin Towers, after all, were the symbol of America’s economic power. Placing a mosque by the site of their destruction (at the hands of Islamic jihadists) symbolizes the taming of that power. Abdul Rauf has placed the blame for 9/11 not on jihadists at all, but on the U.S. and the West, saying that they “must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end.” Statements like that call into question just who the mosque organizers have in mind when they say the mosque is intended to honor “those who were harmed on September 11.”
Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)", "The Truth About Muhammad," "Stealth Jihad," and most recently "The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran" (all from Regnery -- a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).
Quote:
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010...ks-commission/
By R.M. Schneiderman
A number of vocal critics have been unable to derail a Muslim organization’s plans to build a $100 million mosque near Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan.
But the construction of the mosque on a site that houses a building damaged by debris from the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centers, is now in jeopardy because the 152-year old structure is being reviewed for city landmark status, the New York Post reports.
The Landmarks Preservation Commission told the Post that it has had an application in to make the building a landmark since 1989. A spokeswoman for the commission told the Post that a hearing would soon be held and a verdict rendered.
If landmark status is approved, the Post said it would be unlikely that the building could be torn down and replaced with a new structure.
In the meantime, the mayor, who appoints the commission’s 11 members, remains supportive of the project, despite protests from some family members of 9/11 victims.
The group behind the mosque, the American Society for Muslim Advancement, has said the landmark issue should not be a problem.
Earlier this month, a Community Board 1 committee approved the plans for the mosque, which would be called Cordoba House.
Correction: An earlier version of this article stated that Community Board 1 approved the plans for the mosque. It was the board’s Financial District Committee that approved the plans, not the entire board.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37132
Why There Should Be No Mosques at Ground Zero
by Robert Spencer
05/24/2010
Now that it has been revealed that not one, but two mosques are planned for the area around Ground Zero, the supremacist and triumphalist character of this effort is clearer than ever.
...The placement of mosques throughout Islamic history has been an expression of conquest and superiority over non-Muslims.
Muslims built the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock on the site of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in order to proclaim Islam’s superiority to Judaism.
The Umayyad Mosque in Damascus was built over the Church of St. John the Baptist, and the Hagia Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople was converted into a mosque, to express the superiority of Islam over Christianity.
Historian Sita Ram Goel has estimated that over 2,000 mosques in India were built on the sites of Hindu temples for the same reason.
But the Ground Zero mosque, or mosques, won’t be another example of that Islamic supremacism, will they? After all, the mosque initiative’s organizer, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, has said that the building of the mosque by the World Trade Center site was intended to make “the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.”
...And Ground Zero is not a holy site, so the symbolism of Islam conquering and replacing other religions isn’t there—or is it?
The Twin Towers, after all, were the symbol of America’s economic power. Placing a mosque by the site of their destruction (at the hands of Islamic jihadists) symbolizes the taming of that power. Abdul Rauf has placed the blame for 9/11 not on jihadists at all, but on the U.S. and the West, saying that they “must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end.” Statements like that call into question just who the mosque organizers have in mind when they say the mosque is intended to honor “those who were harmed on September 11.”
Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)", "The Truth About Muhammad," "Stealth Jihad," and most recently "The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran" (all from Regnery -- a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).
Quote:
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010...ks-commission/
By R.M. Schneiderman
A number of vocal critics have been unable to derail a Muslim organization’s plans to build a $100 million mosque near Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan.
But the construction of the mosque on a site that houses a building damaged by debris from the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centers, is now in jeopardy because the 152-year old structure is being reviewed for city landmark status, the New York Post reports.
The Landmarks Preservation Commission told the Post that it has had an application in to make the building a landmark since 1989. A spokeswoman for the commission told the Post that a hearing would soon be held and a verdict rendered.
If landmark status is approved, the Post said it would be unlikely that the building could be torn down and replaced with a new structure.
In the meantime, the mayor, who appoints the commission’s 11 members, remains supportive of the project, despite protests from some family members of 9/11 victims.
The group behind the mosque, the American Society for Muslim Advancement, has said the landmark issue should not be a problem.
Earlier this month, a Community Board 1 committee approved the plans for the mosque, which would be called Cordoba House.
Correction: An earlier version of this article stated that Community Board 1 approved the plans for the mosque. It was the board’s Financial District Committee that approved the plans, not the entire board.
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
I don't know the why the muslim group wants to put a mosque on ground zero, but it could easily also be seen as America not bowing to the hatred of the terrorist and continuing to embrace every American, including muslim-Americans. I don't know the background of the story but I'm inclined to disagree with the Wall Street Journal because they have a terrible opinion page.
