Hey Marduk... your feeble attempts at culinary prowess would be embarrassing if anyone thought you weren't being ironic, and you make Chef Boyardee look like Wolfgang Puck!Marduk wrote:...if I ever took offense.
...How'd I do?
Moderator: Marduk
Hey Marduk... your feeble attempts at culinary prowess would be embarrassing if anyone thought you weren't being ironic, and you make Chef Boyardee look like Wolfgang Puck!Marduk wrote:...if I ever took offense.
I think we all know there are multiple meanings to that word... some of which are perfectly appropriate. Therefore, this shouldn't be a problem unless you're the jealous, controlling type. Then you'd have some bigger problems.Marduk wrote:Wow. Next you're going to tell me that you engaged in intercourse with my spouse or significant other.
My favorite: "It has many similarities to Nazism, Communism and Fascism."bobtheenchantedone wrote:I skimmed a blog post on the ten reasons why you should burn the Koran. They were dumb reasons. Let's see if I can find it...
http://www.doveworld.org/blog/ten-reaso ... rn-a-koran
I understand this feeling, but it just doesn’t seem to do justice to those who oppose the burning of the Koran.Feelings about the Koran are raw and real. Many people, including families who lost loved ones on 9/11, find the prospect of burning copies of the Koran upsetting. I’ve heard this reaction in my family, too. But feelings aren’t reasons. You can’t tell somebody not to burn their copy of the Koran just because the idea upsets you. You have to figure out why you’re upset. What’s the basis of your discomfort? Why should others respect it? For that matter, why should you?
I agree. The guy is within his rights. In Europe they call stuff like this "hate speech," and it's illegal, but here in the US we have no such distinctions. I absolutely do not believe the church should burn the Quran, nor do I believe they should build a mosque near ground zero. So sue me. But I don't believe that there is anything that anybody can do to stop it. Even though I think that both parties are deliberately inflammatory. Having served my mission in New York and met plenty of Muslims and seen plenty of mosques, I know for a fact that there are other, equally acceptable alternative locations.Imogen wrote:I just don't like the mentality of "this is bad so i'll burn something to show how much i hate it!" it's so juvenile. why not host a conference instead? should i go burn some bibles because there have been (and still are) evil people calling themselves christians? this guy may be within his rights, but people should have the judgment to know when their speech goes from logical discourse to inflammatory and hateful. any chance for understanding gets lost in the anger and hype,
“A key tenet of our faith is to accord everyone the freedom to worship as they choose. It is regrettable that anyone would regard the burning of any scriptural text as a legitimate form of protest or disagreement.”
I take issue with the number "hundreds of millions" and the argument as a whole. There's something like 350 million individuals in the US. (Last I heard was 300 million, so I am doing rough adjustment.) That would mean more than 28% of Americans would have to know the situation and then feel the way you described. I doubt you'd get that number, especially considering the number of children in the US and total number of Americans who just don't care about the news. Avoid hyperbole in the form of numbers unless you can back it up.vorpal blade wrote:If the Muslim group does not back off from its insistence in building near Ground Zero, rather than a mere five blocks further away, hundreds of millions of Americans will be left with the undying conviction that it is not just the extremists who are hell-bent in running roughshod over everyone else. Even the peaceful Muslims will be seen as narrow-minded, ideology driven zealots determined to make the “Satanic” America into an Islamic nation, whether we want that or not. They will be seen as taking advantage of rights that Islamic nations do not grant to their own people.
This is bordering on ridiculous. Really, it is. Let me draw out the distinction for you: Imam would be backing out of an action that he would not only be legally justified in doing, but logically and rationally ought to be able to do without any opposition. He would then be parting with a parcel of land that is worth millions upon millions of dollars. Terry Jones has backed out of an action that he is legally justified in doing, but is logically and rationally abhorrent to any person who is focusing on the contents of the message. The amount of money he would lose would be marginal, and, in reality, he has probably profited already from the media exposure.The Iman may even get a Nobel Peace prize out of it, as well as a very handsome profit from the sale of the property. I doubt Pastor Terry Jones will fare as well.
Ok, this is something I genuinely don't understand. Currently, the plan is to build it about two blocks away, in an old Burlington Coat Factory building, if my understanding is correct. Five blocks further would put it seven blocks away. Is seven really that much more of a difference than two?vorpal blade wrote:If the Muslim group does not back off from its insistence in building near Ground Zero, rather than a mere five blocks further away, ...
YES. In New York, five blocks means the difference between neighborhoods. It would be like moving from Provo to Orem -- not that big of a deal or distance, but actually a pretty big difference.Marduk wrote: Five blocks further would put it seven blocks away. Is seven really that much more of a difference than two?