reply to post by MY2Commoncentsworth
Thank you for sharing your opinion in a well mannered and civilized fashion.
Everyone has an opinion and everyone is entitled to an opinion, yet ATS is a conspiracy site, and a discussion site for critical minds.
That is what ATS is about, and there is no reason that one's passions need take on rancorous overtures. It’s not so much the subject but the
tonality and the lack of civility in which some people let their passions get the best of them, and others at times will contrive to exploit those
passions towards rancor in accusatory ways that detract from the quality of the debate.
I can respect your opinion though I do not share it.
To have the moral high ground, one must act in ways that are moral, and what traditionally has distinguished Americans from other nations, is their
propensity for fair play, equality and innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.
The court of public opinion often with no or very loose standards is not a substitute for the rule of law and it's high evidentiary standards.
Typically and normally the critical minds that congregate to ATS have high evidentiary standards.
While it speaks highly of the government to abide by the Constitution, it doesn’t speak so well that 70% of Americans oppose this mosque in ways
that are prejudicial and find it hard to consider let alone believe that a religious man who has dedicated the previous 20 plus years of his life to
running a smaller facility in the very same neighborhood, who was both a religious man, and practicing it in that neighborhood years before the
tragedy of 9-11 occurred would want to expand to meet the growing needs of his congregation.
Most of America’s laws are in fact based on Roman and Talmudic Laws encoded into the Christian Bible.
It is a complete fallacy that Sharia law is displacing those, and I doubt anyone could cite a credible example of an incident where in fact they are.
Yet despite the fact that 70% of Americans according to polls don’t favor the mosque, 64% of Americans do acknowledge the Constitutional right for
the people to build it.
What’s made these threads difficult for those interested in truth, is so many of the inflammatory news rag pieces and blogs that have made false
claims regarding the details and logistics of the process that have been debunked again and again, yet even after being presented with the actual
facts, some have chosen to just keep repeating the fallacies.
Things like the opening date was planned for September 11th, this was absolutely untrue and simply a contention of a New York Post writer looking to
sensationalize a story for the sake of notoriety and circulation.
Things like Rauf has already been running a Mosque within blocks of the new location for decades. Completely ignored and made to seem
Things like it's an 16 story mosque, when 14 of the floors are an inter-faith community and out reach center.
Things like it’s on ground zero, it’s blocks away.
Things like Rauf’s trip for the State Department, his third in recent years, and planned before the plans to acquire the new facility, and strict
limitations placed on him when abroad working for the U.S. government that do not allow him to raise funds while travelling for the State Department.
Things like Rauf is radical yet has long been an FBI trainer on how to catch tell tale signs of a radical Islamist.
Yet no matter how many times people provide the sources to debunk all the inflammatory accusations many just keep on posting them as if they just
repeat the same lie often enough it will become the truth.
These aren’t things ATS is about, in fact most of the posts to this thread have been entirely off topic, as people continue to press their cases
against the mosque or for the mosque, while the actual topic is are the anti-mosque threads giving ATS a bad name.
People make outrageous claims and then when they can’t support them with credible sources, they simply resort to slander and deflection.
It impedes a productive debate, and a true and honest free flow of information.
Having an opinion is great, trying to foist it on others through a grade school style popularity contest that violates Terms of Service with personal
attacks on other members and off topic posts is not so great.
So understand it’s not so much about having an opinion but how a poster presents that opinion, in which forum and when, and the tactics they use
that are in violation of the Terms of the Service that then give the overall quality of discussions a poor reflection on ATS.
For instance the proper venue to discuss my review of Costa Rica would actually be in the Costa Rican thread.
Not here where an entirely different topic is present.
The credibility of a poster is not a subject of debate if their sources are sound, and they present facts.
The credibility of a poster really only comes into play in a significant way regarding theories they put forward that might be deemed a hoax, because
the entire theory and story is based on one person’s version of the events they are sharing.
Only to a much more limited extent is posters credibility important when it comes to whether others will adopt their opinions or not.
Yet ATS is not an opinion board, it’s a conspiracy board, and a discussion board for critical minds who want to share the highest quality research,
information, and resources for the benefit of other members.
The sun comes up every morning and that’s no less a fact regardless who makes and can factually substantiate that claim, whether that person is a
sinner or a saint, a Muslim, Jew, Christian, Buddhist or Atheist, a Democrat, Republican or a non partisan independent.
It is the rancor which some people promote in foisting opinion and the tactics that they use, that gives such threads a bad name, not the fact that
such things are being discussed.
Discussed civilly, with decorum and respect for fellow members regardless of their opinions and perspectives is what is a credit to ATS and enhances
it’s stature as a premier destination for critical minds.
It remains my contention that often what we imagine in others is simply an acknowledgement of our own inner desires and predilections.
One of the reasons some people don’t make good conspiracy theorists, is because they just don’t have the same devious desires, and lack of
scruples that most who carry out conspiracies do, they can’t imagine doing it themselves, and they can’t fathom anyone else is.
So chances are if someone imagines some other religion is trying to take over the world, it is likely because they themselves would like their own
religion to take over the world.
If someone imagines other posters are trying to intimidate them, it is likely because they are trying to intimidate other posters.
Most fears are simply people imagining the other guy is going to do to them first, what they would really like to do.
That’s why I think it’s a credit to Americans, when they don’t just follow the Constitution because it’s the law of the land, but when it does
provide them that moral high ground, so that there never is any doubt, and people know that Americans aren’t interested in doing the very same
things, they decry morally in others.
I do feel a lot of people have failed in that regard, but that is my opinion.
What that makes me specifically isn’t a subject of debate ever on ATS.
Yet what is acceptable is to say things like, generally is implied or assumed people with such a perspective have arrived at it by way of
Now it’s not personal, and could end up even being insightful, because while it might not apply to the person you specifically mean it for, it might
shed some light for someone else who something rings true about them in those broader more sweeping generalizations that still can allow you to share
your opinions, regarding your take on human behavior, ideology, philosophy without making it specific to a individual poster, but generic to all then
that it might apply.
If the shoe fits, most people in fact will wear it, but not when placed on the defensive through personal attack, so you see my friend, it’s not the
issues on the opposing sides of this debate, but how too many people are engaged in the wrong kind of debate in discussing this issue.
The ATS Terms of Service are very much like the Constitution, the best time to use them, is in fact those times you really don’t want to have too.
Read the Terms of Service; understand they are there for a reason, and that unlike some sites they are actually well enforced.
Follow the Terms of Service in how you conduct your debates and no matter how difficult or challenging a subject might be, it’s always going to be a
credit to you.
[edit on 19/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]