It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I want to paint my Bicycle blue. 60% of my town is against it.

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I have a mountain bicycle which I would like to paint blue, one of my friends is a reporter and when he found out he was outraged. Now the whole town knows I want to paint my bicycle blue despite the fact that nine years ago, ten people were killed by a blue car in a hit and run.

So far 60% of the town has already voiced opposition to me painting my bicycle blue.

Is it my responsibility to do with my private property whatever the most popular thing to do with it is, am I in the wrong to paint my bicycle blue anyway? It's my favorite color and it's my bicycle, but the town wants me to paint it a different color.

This is what I feel the ground zero mosque debate is.

It's private property, I support someone's right to do with their own private property what they want with it, so I support the ground zero mosque.

It's not 60% of the town's bicycle, they didn't pay for my bicycle, they didn't lube the chain and they didn't sand it down for repainting. I did. Why can't I paint it blue or those property owners in Manhattan build a mosque?




posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
tell them to gently carres off and ride your bike with style
haters gonna hate
lovers gonna love
i dont even want non of the above



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
LOL good analogy, you had me going for a bit there, I thought you lived in some kind of fascist village... I guess America would be the fascist village in your analogy.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
I just can't stop thinking of the debate in this way. I see people that normally would fight head over heels to protect private property jumping ship hypocritically and acting like we should be doing with our property whatever the most popular thing to do with it is instead of, well, what we want to do with our own property.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
oh, jeez.. I thought this was a Prop 8 thread.. lol. Similar principle, except, your town would have to pass a law by referendum first banning all blue bicycles..



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Sorry, but you analogy fails.

I'm sure there are many things about town that are blue.
Blue is not a big bad symbol of the accident.
A blue car of the particular make would be closer.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
It is not the same thing.

But saying that, what the owners of the property want to do with their property, its their business, as long as it is allowed in the zoning laws.

I think Americans are a little too horny about Islam. You all get HARD trying to be as racist, as full of demon-like hatred towards other human beings that have caused no harm to you. What gives?

Who cares what is built on that site. It wont be there in 60 years anyway. THE MONEYCHANGERS have their way and it will change hands several times., and well, the building will be torn down to make room for something else, or just renovated.

A few bad apples dont ruin the whole batch. If that were true, the Americans would have to look in the mirror, for they have much more attrocities on their page than Muslim extremists.

for the record, i dont follow any religion (Creator God YES, religion NO), and I admire the United States of America, (well the old version, closer to its birth), and I love all humans.

bitching for a friggin mosque. people have no class.



[edit on 21-8-2010 by Le Colonel]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by sremmos
 


I understand the right to do what you want with your private property, but that private property is not in a vacuum, it is in the middle of a community and I believe the community should have as much say as the private owner what goes on in their community.

I do not support the blocking of a Muslim Mosque (because the reasons are wrong), but I don't think that because it's private property the owner can do what they want with their property when it effects the community.

What if someone decided to open an abattoir next door to you? Or dog kennels? Would you still support their right to do what they want?



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Haha ya no kidding. I am from California so that rings home. This one's about the mosque because now the argument is that while it's their "legal right" they "still shouldn't do it" because it's unpopular, and that somehow it is 'wrong' of them to do stuff with their own private property unless it's first 'approved' by a majority of the town.

The prop 8 one is worse because we actually used popularity to remove civil liberties in a legal sense, eg the idea that you don't own your own self, whereas the mosque thing is at least "is your private property that you paid for, pay taxes on, and work on, yours or are you supposed to do with it whatever the town decides for you"



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by sremmos
 


I understand the right to do what you want with your private property, but that private property is not in a vacuum, it is in the middle of a community and I believe the community should have as much say as the private owner what goes on in their community.

I do not support the blocking of a Muslim Mosque (because the reasons are wrong), but I don't think that because it's private property the owner can do what they want with their property when it effects the community.

What if someone decided to open an abattoir next door to you? Or dog kennels? Would you still support their right to do what they want?


zoning laws prevent this kind of thing.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


Just as there are thousands of mosques in the country and even one just a few hundred feet away from the proposed site.

Besides, a blue car would not be a better analogy, unless I missed something and they also flew a Mosque into the WTC buildings?

Blue is but a property of the object that caused the pain the "town" is feeling.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
I'm not getting involved in the debate, but with all the square footage of real estate available in New York City to put up a place of worship, why select the site where 10,000 people were murdered?

They LEGALLY have the right to do it, but ethically they are making a bad call.

That's no different than me putting up a Hitler shrine in Auschwitz.

Just a thought,

King



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Go for it. It's your property, you get to treat it in the way you want, as long as you are not forcing other's to paint their bikes blue, too.

We I was little, we got a nice wagon. So nice, my grandkids have it now. It was the only blue wagon I have ever seen that is just blue, without any character tie-in. It's a great wagon, I always knew which one was mine when playing, and it was just unique. Like me.
As for the mosque, Muslims were victims that day. Fanatic lunatics were the terrorists. They are not the same. People who are speaking against it don't understand the joys of this society. There will always be haters; let's hope they don't enter politics.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


Unfortunately, it is just those sort of people who suceed in politics. The fanatic hating power grabbers who will do or say anything to keep the perceived power that they attain.

A person who wants a leadership position is never the person who deserves it.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


What determines whether or not the community's concern is legitimate or not?

If the community would not be against a Christian church in the same location but is against an Islamic church it is a civil rights violation and not a legitimate "community" concern.

Just because your community personally dislikes a color of bicycles or a type of church doesn't mean it's in the right to try and force compliance with popular aesthetics, if you want that # you go live in a community with an "Association."

Frankly I wouldn't care if a slaughterhouse was built next to me unless it was going to tangibly effect my own property.

Me going by and being all "omg I hate blue bicycles" is not a legitimate reason for me to tell someone they can't paint their bicycle blue.

Me going by and being all "Omg a mosque/community center! arrggg" is not a legitimate reason for me to tell someone they can't have a mosque.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Le Colonel
zoning laws prevent this kind of thing.


LOL kinda not the point.

Or maybe it is the point?

So it's OK to stop someone doing what they want with their private property if the state decides by creating a zoning law?

Doesn't that kinda contradict the OS and his idea that the private owner should be allowed to do what they want with their private property?

Or is it selective, and who should have the right to decide, the people or the state?

'Private property' is not a good argument to allow a mosque, or anything else that the majority decide they don't want in their neighborhood.

Even though I support that 'right' I think whoever doesn't want the mosque is wrong, and their objections are based on media fed hysteria.

This idea that people can do 'what they want' with no regard to the community around them is breeding a society with no consideration for others. If I owned a car with a loud stereo I guess because it's my property there would be nothing wrong with me sitting outside your house at 3am playing Crass at full volume?

[edit on 8/21/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
you should have used "car" and "rebel flag" instead. But I get what your trying to say even though i disagree with you



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Kingalbrect79
 


Okay let's say you own some property in Manhattan, you don't own all of Manhattan so you don't have the choice to just put things wherever you want.

Well you're trying to build a Christian church, it's expensive, but at least you already purchased the land in Manhattan. You start to build your church, but suddenly the news is mad at you, you're being told you're evil and all this other stuff for trying to build your church in THIS spot (that unfortunately, you own). Man if only you had tried to build your church in ANY OTHER PLACE except where your property is!

Are you suggesting taking the ABSURD risk of selling your property and then buying new property in Manhattan and then building your church?

Really?

These people don't own manhattan so the square footage of manhattan is irrelevant. That's like asking me why I don't put my house in a prettier spot in california.

Because I don't own California.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by sremmos]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Well, the idea is that laws should not be passed without careful consideration to the health and welfare of the public as well as other effects. Course, in practice, they don't always live up to this ideal.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
Sorry, but you analogy fails.

I'm sure there are many things about town that are blue.
Blue is not a big bad symbol of the accident.
A blue car of the particular make would be closer.


And how does a mosque, (a place of prayer), equates to a big bad symbol for the 9/11 accident?

A terrorist camp of particular make would be closer?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join