Matatabi Posts

Seems we'll be reiterating our opinions over and over again so I'll cut out a bunch of points.



Yes, there will be a few (heavy emphasis on the few) who will realize they were wrong, but I also believe that the majority of those who were opposed to the project will gain an even deeper mistrust of Muslims.

Therein lies the problem and the reason why I would have suggested using a bit of tact.



I respect you for overcoming your prejudice, but not everyone is as strong willed. As I have mentioned, and I have a feeling I'll be repeating myself of this fact again, people are generalizing creatures and the way they feel towards Muslims and 9/11 incident is quite understandable, yet irrational.

You mentioned that you don't believe the Imam to be insensitive. Here's the definition of insensitive:



The reason I keep stating that the Imam is being insensitive is because he either doesn't understand natural human behavior, or he just doesn't care. If he did, and he still wished to decrease prejudice of Muslim-Americans, he would have considered a new location. As I have replied to Chlor, by building the prayer center in its current planned location, it will only harden the hate for Muslims of those who are against the building of the prayer center.



I agree, but if you had a choice between what we're justifying by stopping the project, or worsen the detrimental feelings of the Americans by continuing the project, what would you choose?

I agree with everything up to this point, but...



This is the way I'm interpreting the quoted statement (I may be over simplifying): "Americans hate Muslims. Americans don't want to mingle with Muslims. Therefore, Americans do not want to tolerate a Muslim Cultural Center/Mosque where mingling may occur. The controversy in NYC can be explained through the aforementioned reasoning."

The problem with this is there are mosques built all over the US. There might be minor issues here and there we may never hear about, but they are still allowed to build where ever they please. This disproves your theory that Americans trying to hinder the Muslims progress just because they hate Muslims. The Americans are angry because of another factor and I think you're having a problem of adding this factor into your equation when it comes to the issue.

You may say all lumping everyone in the Muslim faith together is wrong, but looking at the overall picture, people will view that they've all fallen from the same tree.

For example, in a professional workplace, if one employee screws up, in the eye of the customer the whole business has failed to provide the service they've promised.

Is it true? No. But is it human? Yes.

If you really wish to make a difference, we can continue with my analogy:

If a business wants to get back in good favors with the customer again, they often comply with the customer's irrational demands instead of plowing through with their own logic. This would only incite the customer further into thinking the company is worthless even if the corporation is in the right.

What I'm trying to get at is this: If the Imam was really making an effort to bridge the gap between the two factions, he would have found another place.

Again, I am not saying Americans are being rational, and what I said above is the action the Imam should have taken. I am just writing to let you know that he is unintentionally rubbing salt on a wound that hasn't been closed yet, which is also the missing factor in your equation.



I think it's just normal human behavior. Opinions.

You do realize the REASON for why the American public thinks the whole war happened is 2 blocks from where the mosque will be situated? You don't think that's going to set anyone off?

Yes, they have every right to build where ever they want, even on top of the grounds the twin towers stood. The law definitely says they are free to do so as long as they have the right to the properties, and I am not confused about this fact.

But the fact remains that it is definitely not an act froth with consideration. If any of you are educated in proper etiquette, there shouldn't be any confusion as to why the American people are angry.

Quite frankly, I don't care where they're situated and I don't think it was Rauf's intention to rub salt in America's wound. But if he was really aiming for a better relationship between the people, then I don't see why he would be so adamant in building in a location that has set people on a rampage. Even if unintentional, he has accidentally knocked some salt on America's wound.



This will not improve relations between people of Islam and Americans. While I believe it was not Rauf's intention to piss off the American public, I also don't believe it was his intention for a better relationship between the Islam and US citizens. These two groups will hardly mingle with each other in their day-to-day lives for a change in relationship with increased contact. In fact, it might have the opposite effect now with this controversy. Some might not like the fact that there are people attending services in a building they were against.



Generalization isn't something new. Look all around the world (perhaps even in the middle east), and throughout history. Might be insightful.



This article's bias has reached Fox News levels. Anyways, it didn't change my outlook of the Imam in the least. I still don't think he had either good or bad intentions.

What? That is totally legit bro. He needs to fill it out so his gmail doesn't get deleted.

One is above logic when they're a mod.

Fucking sausage fest in here.

I would actually like to see more nuclear power plants built. Other than the fact that they still haven't gotten over the issue of safely storing depleted uranium, I think it's a pretty good source of energy.



At this moment, wind power is providing 2% of all energy worldwide. Not too bad for an "unreliable" source and without it being fully utilized.



There have already been some breakthroughs:

Tidal fences will be used to keep fishes away, and auto shutdowns are planned to be installed for the safety of larger fish. They've also created a river type turbine that dramatically decreased the death toll of the marine animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power#Environmental_impact



Sounds pretty good. Makes me wonder why it hasn't been implemented. Hardly any cons vs. uranium.

I heard from his other partners that you won't feel a thing.

1. Check this thread.
2. Think about it. (Important step, many people miss this one)
3. Find your answer.

Grape juice?

I noticed people who try and enforce perfect grammar throughout the site always seem to think they have achieved perfect grammar themselves. Which is, in fact, not the case.

On topic:

It's doubtful that nuclear power will ever be a major source of energy in the US. Even with experts claiming it as a safe and clean energy source, the stigma of nuclear power plants after Chernobyl will never be erased.

Hydro power isn't restricted to dams. Another source of power that is being considered for the future is tidal power. The only major issues are availability of waves and high costs.

Link:

http://www.energy-consumers-edge.com/tidal_energy_use.html

Hydro power will be the biggest contributor of power, but I doubt it will be able to fill the gap left by fossil fuel energy on its own. So, as the OP mentioned, it will come down to other alternate energy farms working in concert to provide power.

As to when this will happen? Probably when we start running low on fossil fuel and it becomes extremely expensive. Meaning, probably within a decade or two.

Obvious attention whoring is obvious.

Again, taking my post too literally.



Yes, I wanted to bring to her attention that she was defending a complainer from complaints. No one is going to take it seriously or sympathize.

It would be like defending a con man from a bunch of other con men. No one is going to take the defender seriously.

My post wasn't literal. I just wanted LostQuartet to know she was defending a complainer from complaints by saying complaints weren't going to get anyone anywhere (the defense being in the form of a complaint about complaints).

I think they're thinking they would like to have their prostate stimulated while consciously choosing to have a female simulate what males do to females wearing a male organ. This is the part that makes it gay. They're consciously choosing to play the role of a woman.

I think Kal is trying to say that wanting a dick or other imitations of the MALE genitalia inside you is gay. Doesn't matter what gender is fucking you. When it comes down to it, you're getting fucked by a male sexual organ.

https://www.fakku.net/viewtopic.php?t=24874

https://www.fakku.net/viewtopic.php?t=33909

https://www.fakku.net/viewtopic.php?t=29200

Probably more.

The only difference is, he uses tact and bigger walls of texts.

Always worked for Waar.