Unf**king Believable, A mosque to be built at Ground Zero

Agreed. Laws give a nod to morality, but don't completely inform it. Then again, moralities also differ.
 
phlogistician said:
No it's not, unless you're a bigot. In 'The Land of the Free' these AMERICAN CITIZENS, can buy property, and put it to whatever use they think fit. If you do not agree with that, you are an oppressor of freedom, and just as bad as the Taliban.
Click to expand...
phlogistician said:
I don't. I don't think that it matters what the religion of the people wanting to build this centre is. You seem to think it does, however. You have a problem with them being Muslims. I doubt you wouldn't have a problem if it were a Christian church being built. So you are a bigot.
Click to expand...
phlogistician said:
Your morality exists solely in your head. You have failed to explain it, or substantiate it, or that there even is moral aspect to this story.
But you have demonstrated you are an anti-Islamic bigot, and anti-freedom.
Click to expand...



I see that you have a mental obsession.
Go to the doctor to check your connections between neurons.
 
Dywyddyr said:
I disagree. Laws are concerned with legality, not morality, or ethics.
One can shout "immoral" at anything one considers to be immoral, but it need not be an illegal action that one is condemning.
Click to expand...

All comes under the premise of law, including what can be termed as moral or not. There is the legal tort of CLEAN HANDS. If one conducts immorality, he cannot accuse another of the same - because that is unethical.

Similarly, if one unlawfully restricts a person from commiting any immorality - then he cannot say no immorality was commited - because it was processed unethically and made impossible anyway. Morality is what one does which they aught not to do - so it only applies if they could do a wrong, knew it was wrong - and still did so. I gave an example, namely if you tie up a woman head to toe so she cannot move - she cannot be accused of immorality - its a contradiction in terms.
 
GeoffP said:
Agreed. Laws give a nod to morality, but don't completely inform it. Then again, moralities also differ.
Click to expand...

Yes, morality can be a subjective term. But certain agreed fundamentals apply. IMO, a briefly clad woman who is nonetheless respected by her colleagues - is more moral than one who is covered head to toe with no guarantee they would be moral in tempting situations. So different forms of morality apply, and this is best tested when there is an open avenue to be immoral - and this is avoided.
 
I'd go so far as to suggest (this is without giving it serious thought) that shouts of "immoral" at law breakers stem mainly* from the perception that the immorality is in breaking the law itself, not in the act that is being perpetrated.
And maybe inspired by the fact that the perpetrator is seemingly getting away with it when you yourself didn't when you tried it... :)

* Meh, okay, maybe in many cases.

IamJoseph said:
All comes under the premise of law, including what can be termed as moral or not. There is the legal tort of CLEAN HANDS. If one conducts immorality, he cannot accuse another of the same - because that is unethical.
Click to expand...
Oh dear. Fail.
Can one shout "immoral" at a woman who sleeps with five guys in one week?* What does the law say? Can one take someone to court for stealing? Even if the accuser is a convicted thief?
The law does not legislate on morality.

* I'm not giving my personal position on this (it's beside the point anyway).

Morality is what one does which they aught not to do - so it only applies if they could do a wrong, knew it was wrong - and still did so.
Click to expand...
Nope. morality isn't to do with "right" and "wrong" (that's legality). It's about perceptions of "right" and "wrong".
 
Dywyddyr said:
I'd go so far as to suggest (this is without giving it serious thought) that shouts of "immoral" at law breakers stem mainly* from the perception that the immorality is in breaking the law itself, not in the act that is being perpetrated.
And maybe inspired by the fact that the perpetrator is seemingly getting away with it when you yourself didn't when you tried it... :)
Click to expand...


I hope I got that.

If we consider that laws are a contract between members of a society, then their violation in itself is immoral.
I can believe that some laws are immoral, but I have to respect.
Or, I am morally against abortion.But I do not agree that abortion should be prohibited by law.

 

Morality depends very much on their own perception.
Is immoral to cheat at cards.
However, if a league of cheaters, which is announced: "the best cheater win",for me is not immoral.
 
IamJoseph said:
Islam is openly and blatanly promoting a Nazi like attitude towards the Jews and their country, and condonding the world's greatest falsehoods as history. Wearing a pretend Pal mask does not dent this fact. When one reads some of the sermons by Islamic clerics - it is so chilling it even surpasses the Nazis. And all Muslims are silent of it.
Click to expand...

Honestly, your posts just keep getting better and better. So not only are Muslims evil now we are being compared to the Nazis. What an absurd world you live in. This is ridiculous, even for this forum.

So anyway, why do we not see any scholars doing so? Why do we not see billboards and media in Islamic countries describing him as a mass murderer and that Muslims have a duty to apprehend him? My reading is that he has been made akin to a neo Islamic prophet, so excuse me for not buying any today.
Click to expand...

Are you out of your fucking mind? This is patently absurd, seriously, even for this forum with all it's crazy anti-Islamic ideas, this one right here is taking the cake. To state that Osama bin Laden is a neo-prophet (which is a moronic term to use anyway in this context) would be to go against the teachings of Islam. Muhammad (saw) was the seal of the prophets (as), period. Not only this, Osama bin Laden has no authority whatsoever to issue any fatwas and has no title whatsoever. Not only this, just because you don't or choose not to see opposition doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
 
"Neo-Prophet" is clearly too far. "Hero" might be a more appropriate term, in some circumstances.
 
ja'far said:
It is Islam characteristic and Islam does condone it, among millions of Muslims all over the world.
”
This is absurd on it's face.
Click to expand...
It is physical fact. If the reality of the world seems absurd, and contrary to your idealistic visions of Islam, I am sorry about that - the rest of us are not dealing with an Islam that does not condone such things. We are dealing with an Islam that does.
ja'far said:
We're talking about a group that's stated Mission is to show Americans that Islam doesn't condone the alleged acts of the "terrorists," and to better relations between the Muslim "world"/community and the West. Also, to better gender relations and equality and so forth
Click to expand...
And they choose to further these noble aims by building a huge, dramatic, obviously political "Islamic cultural center", apparently financed by the misogynistic coreligionists and inequality exemplifying political allies of those who financed 9/11 (possibly the very same people, in some cases), right next to the site of that very successful assault.

They decide to begin this bettering by provoking and offending as many Americans as such a project possibly could.

So are they stupid, or are they lying?
ja'far said:
I'm beginning to wonder whether your version of Islam actually exists anywhere.
”
In other words because I'm presenting Islam that conflicts with your own view of what Islam is, then it must not exist anywhere, right?
Click to expand...
So you can't think of any examples either. No surprise there.
 
iceaura said:
It is physical fact. If the reality of the world seems absurd, and contrary to your idealistic visions of Islam, I am sorry about that - the rest of us are not dealing with an Islam that does not condone such things. We are dealing with an Islam that does.
Click to expand...

Again, you keep making these declarations as if they were fact. What's absurd is again you keep refering to Islam as if Muslims were the Borg and it's ridiculous. Not to mention this whole argument your trying to use of "ideal," Islam is also equally as stupid, I have already explained this. Scroll up, re-read, then come back to me because honestly, I'm sick of fucking repeating myself over and over and trying to address the same bullshit, over and over and over and over again.

And they choose to further these noble aims by building a huge, dramatic, obviously political "Islamic cultural center", apparently financed by the misogynistic coreligionists and inequality exemplifying political allies of those who financed 9/11 (possibly the very same people, in some cases), right next to the site of that very successful assault.
Click to expand...

Heavy talk but where's the proof? Oh, wait, apparently, it's self-evident because no one here can prove this horseshit to me.
 
ja'far said:
Heavy talk but where's the proof?
Click to expand...
Still can't think of an example? There's a billion Muslims on this planet, in hundreds of different places - surely you can come up with one group, anybody, that matches what you claim to be true of all of Islam.

It would be even better if that group had some connection to the people behind this deeply offensive "Islamic cultural center" , to counteract the appearance of the wrong kind of Islam, the stuff that according to you is not really Islam, currently dominating the project.
 
Emil said:

Oohhh....ohh....For you there is no difference between "must be" and "are"?

"Both must and have to can be used to speak about obligation or necessity:"
http://www.britishcouncil.org/learnenglish-central-grammar-must-have-to.htm
Click to expand...
Not to interfere, but I think that you are referring to the difference between "should be" and "are". "Should" implies what "ought" to be, or what would be in a perfect world.

"Must" means "by necessity" or absolutely "has to be". If this is not what you mean, my apologies...
 
Randwolf said:
Not to interfere, but I think that you are referring to the difference between "should be" and "are". "Should" implies what "ought" to be, or what would be in a perfect world.

"Must" means "by necessity" or absolutely "has to be". If this is not what you mean, my apologies...
Click to expand...


"Laws must be moral but are not." This sentence is meaningless?
If so, I expressed myself wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top