It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 06:12 PM
reply to post by ANOK

I support full private property rights as long as what you're doing on your property isn't hurting other people's property.

If you are slaughtering animals, and there is pollution from this (smell, noise, bacteria) and any of this is getting into someone else's property, it's relevant to the interests of other property owners (hurting their property).

This is a TANGIBLE issue and not a "I don't like those damn muslims!" issue. There is a difference.

The nice thing about zoning laws is that while they are used in malicious ways, at the very least they are indiscriminant.

A zoning law is like:
"Bicycles are not allowed in this town period."

No discrimination on the colors of the bicycles.

The mosque debate is like:
"You can only paint your bicycle red, don't paint it blue!"

See the difference?

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 06:14 PM

Originally posted by oozyism

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?

I specifically used bicycle even though i said it was a hit and run (implied car) because a Mosque did not carry out any attacks at all that day.

The mosque's only relationship to 9/11 is that it's something from Islam, similarly the bike's only relationship to the hit and run was that I wanted to paint it blue.

Analogy works.

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 06:21 PM

Originally posted by sremmos
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.

Ah you miss my point. My point is saying 'private property' gives a person the right to do what they want with it, with no concern for the community, is wrong. My argument is with the OS's point, not whether the community has a right to stop a mosque. If you read my whole post you would have seen I pointed that out.

BTW Of course an abattoir is going to effect your property (which really isn't but that's for another thread) that was why I chose that. You would never be able sell your property for starters. My point was that the private property argument is silly, whether it's abattoirs or mosques. You, as a part of the community, should have a right to protest what someone else is doing with their private property if you feel it will effect your community, and/or your 'property'. By giving too much rights to property owners you take away your own rights as a member of your community.

[edit on 8/21/2010 by ANOK]

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 06:28 PM

Originally posted by sremmos
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?

Just do it, they sound like idiots.

How many of them have blue cars?

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 06:38 PM
If the mosque is bought and paid for by the monies of those who are to build it you are correct.


If a single tax payer dollar is spent then it is not private property nor private monies; and therefore is subject to the We the People's opinions and will.

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 06:58 PM
reply to post by ANOK

That's all well and good, if what the community is concerned with was based on rational thinking.

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 08:03 PM
I see a lot of people in the 'not caring bracket' are NOT American, or don't live in America or never been here (in relation to people on this site who support the mosque, as opposed to those who oppose it.).

Of course you don't care what they build there. You don't hold a place in your heart for Ground Zero like most Americans do. You have never been to this country so its harder for you to care about the attacks like we do. Many of you didn't have relatives or friends who were killed on that day.

Taking all that into consideration: you opinions mean nothing to me. Since you don't have a personal connection to the attacks, don't live here or never did let alone visit here, your opinions don't hold merit and can be construed as a personal attack. Those who do truly understand 9/11 and those who do have those connections, are smart enough to know that 'Ground Zero,' does NOT just include the WTC.

Now sure they can build what they want there in accordance with the law, but they didn't have to pick this spot, and they sure didn't need to pick the day to celebrate their new mosque, 9/11/11.

Now I am not for the Mosque being put there. But it is going to happen so instead of stooping to the level of the 9/11 terrorists, let them have their mosque. Lets not get violent or threaten the, with bodily harm. We are better than that. If we truly are 'united' then the country can look at this as a wake up call and actually do something about getting the memorials and new towers built, and not 30 years from now.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by DragonFire1024]

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 08:05 PM

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
If the mosque is bought and paid for by the monies of those who are to build it you are correct.


If a single tax payer dollar is spent then it is not private property nor private monies; and therefore is subject to the We the People's opinions and will.

Really? Try sun bathing naked on the lawn of the White House and see where that lands you.

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 08:10 PM
reply to post by ACTS 2:38

In theory, sure, in practice, not at all.

Billions of dollars go into "black budgets" that we get to know nothing about. Money that goes to things like testing drugs on US citizens without their consent (MK-Ultra) or even the murder of US citizens (Chemist wars during the Alcohol prohibition), or if you want more modern examples:

1. Warrantless Wiretapping
2. Hiring officials to counter controversial opinions online.

Or the really big obvious one:

The Bailouts.

Your "reasonable expectation" of having a say is extremely low, since 'majority popularity' was never a concern when it came to this money being pumped out. The government doesn't consider your tax money to be your money, it considers it to be its money similar to if a man robbed you he wouldn't ask your opinion on what to do with it.

If the mosque is taking money from its locality (as in, Manhattan) then sure, the locals of Manhattan should have some say but only in the form of the Republic (they can get rid of the governor or whichever public officials approved the money for use as a mosque). Also, only if the Mosque is receiving funds that are exclusive to it and not available to more popular denominations of churches. EG if it is getting money FOR being a place of worship and that is money that all places of worship get then that's not a good argument that 'popularity' determines someone's right to build a mosque on their own private property.

If the government gives a private property owner money, that doesn't mean the private property owner sold his private property. It's still his, if you want to take away his public funding you can sure attempt to do that but you can't claim that because someone gets 'any' funding that they have effectively been sold.

If my friend gives me 100.00 he does not own my house.

Realistically, if the city government approved the Mosque and the only reason to disapprove of it is "We don't like those Muslims! We don't want them in our town!" then it becomes a civil rights issue.

Currently the city has already approved the mosque, saying "we hate muslims" is not a legitimate reason to rescind the approval.

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 08:34 PM
Your blue bike has nothing to do with that mosque and you are so confused as the 60% of the people in your town.

Lets say the crashed planes in 9-11 where white. Did we change the white paint of the airplanes since then?

My friend, I wouldn't live in your town. And who are these 60%? Children of the corn?

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 08:51 PM
So you sat around and pulled this one out of the "blue"!!

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 10:27 PM

Originally posted by SpectreDC
reply to post by ANOK

That's all well and good, if what the community is concerned with was based on rational thinking.

Again I pointed out I don't agree with the decision of the community in this case.

I disagree with the OP's reasoning about 'private property'.

Was I not clear enough?

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 10:37 PM
I don't know about the laws in the US but in England we have all kinds of laws that govern what you can and can't do with your own property.

You can't for example build a huge ten floor night club in the middle of a tiny sleepy village because the local council would reject you planning permission on the basis that it would adversely effect the lives of those around you. You can't plant a gigantic 20 foot high hedge in your garden if it would completely block all of the sunlight from your neighbors garden.

If you live in a really old house then your troubles get even bigger, here we have listed buildings that are considered to be of historical importance to the country and if you buy one of them you have to ask permission just to repaint your walls or fit a carpet.

I can't pretend to understand the whole debate about the mosque, but if people wouldn't have a problem with a Christian church being built on the same site then I don't see what the problem could be other then religious bigotry.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by davespanners]

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 10:41 PM
Whoa wth? I came into this thread expecting that painting it blue would be bad cause of the stupid punk ass "gangstas" in your town and people were trying to keep you safe but that's just dumb. Paint your bike.

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 01:03 AM
The terrprists win if they manage to get people riled up enough to stop the building of this mosque.
Even if they are your own goverment......

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in