The Anti-Muslim Threads Are Giving ATS a Bad Name

reply to post by MY2Commoncentsworth

I am sorry if I upset you by not providing a link to the quote that I have
previously posted. I did not feel that I had the need to do so because the entire paragraph and the link were already posted in this thread, and you have just posted them again.

Let me make this perfectly clear, and staff I do feel this is topical to the thread as it pertains to how the Anti-Muslim threads are giving ATS a bad name:

A member trying to deflect away from having to provide a source for a claim that 90% of all Muslim Women suffer some form of abuse decided to take that comment from another thread out of context as a MEANS OF DEFLECTION and character assassination.

For the expressed purpose of deflecting away from having to provide a source, you then took a snippet of that out of context quote further removing it from it’s original context FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of character assassination, and to encourage such members to do such things by labeling this dishonest form of deflection ‘Courageous’.

You know what you did and so do I.

This is not how debates are conducted on ATS; we debate the issues not the Posters.

Members encouraging one another to violate Terms of Service in that fashion are in fact members encouraging one another to violate Terms of Service in that fashion and that is what is beginning to give ATS a bad name.

I'll report, and let the reader decide weather or not the remarks were meant as part of a "description of paradise." Perhaps it was poorly worded, (I have recently made similar mistakes myself.) Perhaps not. Nevertheless, they are your words Proto, not mine.

When do you plan on doing that reporting, because the Thread that comment was lifted from was about Costa Rica which is a non-Muslim country.

Further because the comments were originally taken out of context for the means of deflection and character assassination and then even further taken out of context by you to continue that character assassination the actual nation of Costa Rica and the context was entirely removed.

Further so is all the humor from the post. Anyone who reads the post can tell it’s laced with humor, tell me what part do Costa Rican Monitor Lizards and Howler Monkeys play into your anti-Muslim agenda?

At any rate, the post was not meant to disparage you in any manner, but to point out one of the many possible reasons why people have taken the side that they have chosen in the discussion.

It absolutely was meant to disparage, and anyone reading it can easily conclude you took an out of context quote from an out of context quote and attempted to do just that and are still attempting to do that now.

I believe that people should be free to express their opinions without fear of being ganged up on or intimidated in any manner.

So why are you conducting personal attacks on other posters in partnership with another poster who used a personal attack as a means to deflect away from not being able to provide a source for information they were pandering, that multiple members asked her to post.

At ATS we debate the Issues.

Your post was a personal attack on another member (me) and had nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

I thought that Stormdancers post was more than relevant to the discussion. And I believe that I have gained insight on account of it.

This is where you continue on with the personal attack by qualifying it and pretending comments regarding Costa Rica and someone stating the unusual characther of many aspects of Costa Rica (when you look at the REAL CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE POST) has anything to do with how Anti-Muslim Threads are giving ATS a bad name, the topic of this thread.

So since their post with the out of context quote was meant as a personal attack against me and had nothing to do with the topic, the only way it could then become relevant is for attacking other members through gang activity.

Which once again brings us back to why, Anti-Muslim Threads are giving ATS a bad name.

However, I wish that you would stop trying to intimidate me, because if you haven't realized that I am not easily intimidated by now, you won't stop trying to do so.

I am encouraging you to abide by ATS Terms of Service for your own benefit as well as all the other members and to stop trolling threads with personal attacks and off topic posts.

If you feel having to abide by ATS Terms of Service rules are intimidating then ATS might not be the right place for you.

I do not want to be your enemy Proto, I would rather discuss topics in a cordial and polite manner, and agree to disagree as I always like to do when I can not see eye to eye with another member. And I have stated this in several of my previous posts shortly after joining ATS.

Then you will want to stop taking out of context off topic quotes and trying to use them as character assassination in threads.

Further you will want to start debating the issues and staying on topic and not engage in personal attacks against other posters, answer questions to you put honestly to the best of your ability, and provide credible sources and links and properly quote when debating the issues.

I have in fact documented dozens of your posts where you have failed to do that, including many that have been removed for being off topic.

Do us all a favor stop saying one thing and then turning around and doing another.

I am not a bad person, and I do not believe that you are either, although I do believe that everybody, my self included, has their own set of problems and circumstances that they have to deal with. I hope that you realize that we have both been a little obnoxious here recently.

The only problem one has to deal with on ATS is no problem at all and that’s abiding by the Terms of Service.

Post on Topic, answer people’s questions directly and succinctly, claiming you can debunk something but won’t bother too because it’s not worth your time is not something that is going to endear you to members who come to ATS for high quality information and debate.

Deflecting away from answering probing questions by stating you feel no need to explain things to ‘terrorist sympathizers’ is not going to endear you to such people either.

Taking out of context quotes, and misrepresenting them for the purpose of character assassination is not going to endear you either.

Read the Terms of Service, and become a serious member and you will have no problems on ATS.

So once again I say, I do not want to be your enemy, and I am not a bad person...........I have just rescued a large flying insect from being burned under my lampshade, (not a palmetto bug), and I have thrown it out into the hot Florida night.

On ATS we shy away from personal claims as a means of evidence, we look at sources and actions to back up people's contentions.

Saying one thing and doing another isn't the same as doing what you say.

Say what you mean and do what you say.

PERIOD.

Now I have done my part once again in encouraging you to abide by Terms of Service the consequences of not doing so, and the responsibility for that will be your own.

Thanks.



[edit on 18/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

The way I see it, these so called anti-Muslim threads are not giving ATS a bad name, but are rather just paralleling the views and opinions of the 70% of Americans who are opposed to this madness. If there is anything that's giving ATS a bad name in these discussions, it would be the people who suddenly want to defend the Constitution after they have previously shown little support and much contempt for the document.

No one who is in opposition to the mosque disagrees with the Constitutional legality. Most are concerned with the emotional damage that the proposed mosque has caused and will continue to cause to the families who have lost loved ones. Many as well are additionally concerned about the failure of Imam Rauf to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, and for the statement that he made 19 days after 9-11 that Osama Bin Laden was "made in America."

There is also much legitimate concern that this project will be funded, in part, by countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, where women are still stoned to death and given a death sentence if they are seen in public with a man who is not a close relative.

Others, myself included, additionally believe that Radical Islam is on a Crusade to gradually establish Sharia Law in the United States. They have been making inroads, and will continue to do so because the issue has been politicised by selfish politicians who are demonizing the opposition for their own political gain.

Nancy Pelosi has now called for anyone who is questioning the funding of the mosque, Democrats included, to have their own finances investigated. This is more than just laughable, and will only backfire on her and her party in November.

Another reason why people are so upset about this issue is because the so called "moderate Muslims," have failed to condemn this insanity in any substantial numbers or meaningful forums. This leaves many of us who oppose this new construction to no longer believe that Muslims are their own worst enemies but are being silent on the issue simply to divide us.

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 inconsequential.

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 the…….

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.

Thanks.



[edit on 19/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Proto, this is why i love you

That was written in the most beautiful, simple, unarguable way.

So all the haters can put that in their peace pipe and smoke it.

i've seen plenty of anti-christian threads. i think we're more prone to be anti-religion, as we have seen how it has divided us and kept the world at odds.

What about all the threads bashing the pope? Bashing Jews, Bashing the Bible and Christians.

Yet again we must give the Muslims "Special" Treatmeant out of fear of being called racist.
Gimme a break

I would like to thank both MY2Commoncenntsworth and ProtoplasmicTraveler for their excellent posts.
They are shining examples of how two diametrically opposed opinions can be voiced in well reasoned and a well written manner whilst remaining both dignified and respectful to both the individual and the opposing opinions.

If I could I would applaud you both.

reply to post by Haydn_17

Exactly. And it is many of the same folks who bash the pope, the Bible, Christians, and Jews who are the ones supporting the mosque and labeling anybody who dares to disagree with their own hatred of civilization as racist.

Perhaps they have had terrible things happen to themselves in their lives that has brought them to this juncture. So I believe that it is important not to judge them. However, I believe that it is important to point this out as you have done so that people can start to understand Why they do these things.

reply to post by Freeborn


Thank you for your would be applause Freeborn. It is greatly appreciated.

I always try to be amicable until I am pounced on by the opposition. But in the end, I always try to reconcile with the opponent, (in terms of civility, while continuing to stand firmly on my own beliefs), and apologise if I discover that I have made any errors, and try to continue the discussion as a friend who disagrees with another friends position.

Originally posted by Haydn_17
What about all the threads bashing the pope? Bashing Jews, Bashing the Bible and Christians.

Yet again we must give the Muslims "Special" Treatmeant out of fear of being called racist.
Gimme a break

What about establishing your own identity and strongly defined sense of self so one doesn’t have to imagine when someone is being critical of what their nation, or religion, or political party, or organization they have joined doesn’t equate in one’s own mind as being criticism towards you.

There is a huge difference between being ‘bashed’ for things you have done, and using sheer numbers of like minded and affiliated people sharing a group identity to stifle and prohibit criticism and critique of the collective mindset they belong to.

Once again it’s not about the topics, people should be allowed to voice opinions, share concerns, and ask questions and present facts.

So many people’s arguments in relation to these issues is a “Two wrongs really make a right”.

Yet one must ask, are the anti-Christian threads, anti-Israel/Zionism threads, anti-Pope threads similarly unpleasant because people engaged or a part of those movements and religions unwilling to engage in debate on the politics and actions of those groups.

Is it their own close minded circular logic, that prevents them from cordially and civilly engaging detractors to these religions and movements that causes the rancor when topics regarding Christianity, Israel or the Pope come up?

Are they using their own sense of ‘shared identity’ to simply take offense and react emotionally and poorly instead of being able to quantify their own role in it?

If something is counterproductive, morally unsound, destructive and self defeating, critical minds aren’t going to be satisfied with well “God said” in chapter 222, that you must…bla bla bla, they are still going to have real questions that require the individual to think in a way that can justify it, without merely relying on some ancient book of to what many is one of dubious origins and purpose.

The truth is when most people object to something it’s a request for more information. Though many present it in poor ways, as most people are not the best communicators, what they really are doing is giving you as a Christian, as a Jew, as a Catholic, as an American, that chance to better explain it to them, in a way that makes better sense to them.

So in fact a lot of the rancor develops when people can’t explain well why what appears counterproductive, morally unsound, murderously self serving and self defeating, inhibiting and stagnating and circular and then out of desperation or fear begin to simply slander those who are objecting and asking difficult to answer questions.

The truth is in my humble opinion is that far too many people who belong to these groups won’t enter into honest debate or accept others right to criticize and ask questions when it comes to their nation, their religion, their political party, their organization.

Instead they try to make it all about them as individuals and to try to cast dispersions on anyone who is asking critical questions or lodging serious objections.

It’s rather ironic when it comes to religious infighting, Christians versus Muslims, Muslims versus Jews, each wants to cast themselves as more progressive, more evolved, more moral and correct, yet all are literally locked into stone when it comes to their positions, because their positions were written out for them thousands of years ago.

They will tell you it’s time for the world to leave Islam behind because of that, but the thought of leaving their own religion behind because of its very similar limitations?

So yes when it then boils down to simply winning a war of perspective, because all are more or less guilty of the same thing, shaping that perspective and forming those opinions in others does become very problematic and frustrating yet whose fault is that, the person asking the hard or probing questions, who sees hypocrisy and dual standards at play, or the person who has no individual answer of their own that replies “God says in chapter 222, verse 222”

Understand many people want to and can think for themselves, they don’t want or feel they need the word of an ancient book, or the admonishment of someone who relies on it for their perspective and to be told what they must do by either.

So who is really turning those threads into unpleasant discussions, my contention is the people who can’t discuss the issues and questions honestly and open mindedly and civilly and yes that’s usually the people with their head in some book, who then get angry and attack others for questioning.

Once again it’s not about the topic, it’s about how people with instilled identities and stereotypes of others choose to often poorly debate that gives those threads a bad name too at times.

Often they choose to turn it into a rancorous and heated uncivilized debate where raw emotion substitutes for facts simply because they know they have no real answers, just a sense of shared identity that while valid to them isn’t being validated by others and that makes them mad.

Becoming mad is not going to solve the problem, and the truth is most of the passionately religious feel the only way to solve the problem is to create a world where their religion and their shared identity is the only one so it can always be the valid one, and they can always be validated and NOT have to think for themselves, or TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for their own actions.

Religion sells one word, it’s called absolution, and it convinces people that yes you too can do things that are very bad to others and it will be OK because you did it for THIS reason.

No it’s not OK and that’s the problem.

That’s why people do want to question and discuss and debate.

What a shame so many people are unable to recognize that is why ALL these religious inspired threads are popping up.


[edit on 19/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
reply to post by Freeborn

 

Thank you for your would be applause Freeborn. It is greatly appreciated.

I always try to be amicable until I am pounced on by the opposition. But in the end, I always try to reconcile with the opponent, (in terms of civility, while continuing to stand firmly on my own beliefs), and apologise if I discover that I have made any errors, and try to continue the discussion as a friend who disagrees with another friends position.

There is a huge difference between being pounced on by the opposition and simply encountering opposition.

ATS is a big site, and you might find yourself in many debates where because who is online at the time or interested in the topic is going to place you in an environment where there are many at one time promoting the other side of the coin.

If you are the only representative of your side at that time, then no it's not that you are being pounced on, it's that you have the added burden of convincing a lot of people at once.

So if you have facts, and can speak to the topic, and present those facts then no, you really don't have to resort to personal attacks on others, and off topic posts just because you feel increasingly challenged through those circumstances.

In fact make no mistake my friend, you came in here the other night on a thread that was all but dead, and picked up an out of context quote that was used as a means of dishonest deflection and personal attack, and took a snippette of that out of context even further, to use it as a personal attack as a means to launch a conversation.

No one was ganging up on you when you chose to do that.

You weren't even involved previously in this debate when you chose to do that.

Pretending otherwise is just silly, the topic is not about you, or me, or any other member, it's about the topic.

Focus on the topic, focus on the debate, focus on the issues, focus on the facts, the only thing that ever prevents any member from doing that, is the member themselves.

When people stop blaming their poor actions, foolishly and wrongly on others, that is when these debates will become productive and civil.

Thanks.

Are muslim jokes giving ATS a bad name too?

Did you hear about the guy who got busted making land mines that looked like prayer mats? Prophets were going through the roof.

Oh well, back to the curtailing of free speech.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Are muslim jokes giving ATS a bad name too?

Did you hear about the guy who got busted making land mines that looked like prayer mats? Prophets were going through the roof.

Oh well, back to the curtailing of free speech.

Oh my gosh, people who's countries have been invaded violently by outside sources are attempting to defend themselves?

Now that is funny.

The United States of America manufactures more land mines than any other nation.

Maybe that's why our deficit is going through the roof.

The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are the biggest arms dealers in the world.

Maybe it's time we examined the roots of all the violence in the world instead of making jokes about it?

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Maybe it's time we examined the roots of all the violence in the world instead of making jokes about it?

I did not make a joke about all the violence in the world, nor commented on nations defending themselves from invaders. Perhaps it's time to abandon your hang-up spectacles for just a brief moment or two.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Maybe it's time we examined the roots of all the violence in the world instead of making jokes about it?

I did not make a joke about all the violence in the world, nor commented on nations defending themselves from invaders. Perhaps it's time to abandon your hang-up spectacles for just a brief moment or two.

What would make it time for me to abandon my focus on the actual topic?

Because you feel a need to tell an off topic stereotypical joke that panders to those who wish to stereotype?

Or is there actually some unselfish altruistic reason you feel it best not to focus on the topic at the moment?

Love to hear your justification on that one, if you in fact can complete the random thought.

Thanks.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
What would make it time for me to abandon my focus on the actual topic?

You made a comment about my post that had nothing to do with it.

Anyway, carry on.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
What would make it time for me to abandon my focus on the actual topic?

You made a comment about my post that had nothing to do with it.

Anyway, carry on.

Actually I made a comment regarding the issue of where the insturments of violence come from.

Who sells them and who profits off of them.

Speaking of instruments these guys are much better musicians than you are a commedian in my humble opinion.



By the way to all the overly sensitive types out there, please don't lie to yourselves, the Christian religion is all about a final battle of a righteous band of angels laying waste to the entire planet of sinners, to set up a nirvana for the Christian faithful.

See the book of revelations, so you really might want to ask yourselves, who is really hoping to take over the world through religious violence?



[edit on 19/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Actually I made a comment regarding the issue of where the insturments of violence come from.

Who sells them and who profits off of them.

Correct. Topics that had nothing to do with my bad joke.

Anyway, carry on with the American and christians are bad stuff. Looks like I stood in the way of your freight train.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


You have been lured off topic, even though your great joke was on topic.

Better watch out, next you will find yourself being preached to about violating the T&C.

On topic: What might give ATS a bad name is; people who contribute a lot of content may be given preferential treatment. Not anti-Muslim threads.



[edit on 19-8-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


The best musicians are their own worst critics; it’s how they get so darn good at what they do.

Carry on and keep letting God, King and Country think for you!

How’s that working out for the world by the way.

As John Boy and Billy would say…NOT TO GOOD!

People who can't first see themselves as part of the problem, are in fact never going to be part of the solution.

Thanks.