Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/27/10 03:05 PM, CacheHelper wrote:
The mosque is the controversy. Just because the mosque is in the same building as a pool and a gym doesn't make it any less of a mosque.

What's wrong with the mosque? Why is that even an issue? Oh wait, it's near Ground Zero... but why is that an issue? Because people will be upset... but why it thatan issue?

Let's redefine the argument, real quick, since we've lost sight of what the debate is - Should America restrict the Muslims from building the mosque based solely on the fact that it's an Islamic institution? I've read the arguments, and so far all we've got are 'It's subtle support to terrorism, therefore it should be restricted!' (which you don't seem to agree with, fortunately) and 'It's in poor taste, therefore it should be restricted.'. If you don't want it to be restricted then you're arguing for the sake of arguing, since it's obvious that the Muslims are not going to change their mind based on the ranting of the people. If you're not arguing for America to restrict them then you're wasting your breath (and so are the other people ranting and raving against them), so other than to vent why are we even discussing this?

The argument against these views is simple - No, it shouldn't be restricted because our constitution calls for the government and laws to be religiously neutral. If you want to debate whether that's a dated law or not (for the sake of restricting this mosque) go for it and see how far that gets you with the general public.

At 8/26/10 12:36 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

:Things like, why only a praying room for muslims? Why 2 floors? Etc... Are you even reading what I write?

Oh, I don't know... probably because it's a mosque? Sure, a community center, as well, but it's a mosque, so what would you expect, a floor dedicated to Buddha or Hindu?

That's like asking why Christian churches (or community centers, if we want to be consistent, here) don't have rooms dedicated to Islam or Pastafarians. I'm reading what you're writing... it just doesn't make any sense.

Has anyone ever heard of the phrase 'Ad nauseum'?

...anyone?

Hmm... seeing the results of this thread, I'm guessing the confusion between agnosticism, atheism, anti-theism, etc. is actually very common, so it's understandable why you lashed out, Imperator.

This topic has gone from 'Semi-interesting-even-if-incorrect topic' to 'How do we define a word?'... which is not only completely irrelevant to actual discussion and argument, but something that can be easily solved by going to a dictionary (or, in my case, Dictionary.com, since I don't have one on me).

1.) the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.) disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Now we can see why there is confusion, because both definitions that have been tossed around in here are correct. In this circumstance, civil people would either allow the context to speak for them, or (if the context is unclear, like much of this thread) would define the definition modestly, as to disambiguate the term and allow for meaningful discussion to continue.

Not gonna happen in this thread, though, I'm sure.

At 8/24/10 09:57 PM, Imperator wrote: Does nobody pay attention anymore?
There is a difference between "belief of absence", and "absence of belief".

With all due respect, I was defining it how I've always heard it being defined by my own agnostic/atheist friends. I've been told this difference many times, and have been told to define it that way, so I do. I added the disclaimer saying I understand that other people define it differently just so we didn't get into this discussion.

:Then I will put on my list of hobbies:
Does not collect stamps
Does not play hockey
Does not read Goosebumps
Does not go to Church

:And I must say, I spend quite a good deal of time practicing these hobbies.

:As much as you would like to believe otherwise, atheism is no more a religion than those lack of activities are activities.

... semantics. Hold on, I'll define atheism (as you defined it) as agnosticism (as I defined it), and lo and behold I agree with you! Let's define Atheism (as I defined it, correctly or not) as Humanistic Theism (as you've defined it) and you'll see why neither of us agree with it! Correcting me is fine, but creating a straw man doesn't get either of us anywhere, and you know it.

:Why would you continue to hold a position on which you've been corrected?

:The semantics are on your end. There is no muddiness on mine as to what atheism is. And I am quite certain EVERY atheist on this board would back me in saying you are incorrectly describing atheism as a belief, and as a religion.

Look at my post count - how the hell should I know what everyone on your board is going to define it, especially if I've always heard it defined otherwise on the boards I regularly use? I've only posted in this forum for a few days, at best, and I'm not going to dredge through old threads to see how people have defined one term or another. I really don't care what we call it, or even who's right or wrong, frankly - if agnostic (as I defined it) = atheism (as you defined it) then whoopty do.

I honestly don't see why you're getting into this discussion with me, seeing as we completely agree 100% about this topic, according to our posts - a simple correction would've saved you time and energy. Equivocating my meanings to make yourself look smart doesn't get either of us anywhere, especially when we're in unison about the topic that matters.

At 8/24/10 09:35 PM, RazorHawk wrote:

At 8/24/10 05:27 PM, Gorgonof wrote: You're only arguing schematics, most people would not consider it part of ground zero.

Was the building affected by the attacks of 9/11? Yes, it was. Whether people actually consider it to be part of "Ground Zero" or not doesn't matter, the building suffered direct damage that day due to the attacks, thus the "two blocks away from the twin towers" argument doesn't mean anything.

Technically, the whole "The Mosque is being built next to Ground Zero!" argument doesn't mean anything, but people chose to ignore that fact to start with, so people have been reduced to arguing the definition of 'Ground Zero'. So, now that geographical area is defined by anything that the destruction of the towers have affected (rather than being the area that was destroyed in the attack)?

Also, these "most people" you speak of probably don't even know that one of the plane's landing gear and fuselage crashed into that building.

Whoopty do. What does that have to do with building the Mosque there?

The real underlying issue here is that if the Islamic community center is built, the Islamic extremists will consider it to be a victory over the United States and that 9/11 was even more of a success, even if this is not what Imam intends to happen. The question is does Imam realize this, because I don't think he does or he doesn't take it seriously. Even if he isn't associated with the extremists, the extremists believe they are associated with him, and they will see this as a victory. With that, it will help them encourage other people to become extremists seeing as how they are successful in their terrorist campaigns, they are spreading, their morale will be boosted, and it could lead to future terrorist attacks. They consider 9/11 to be one of, if not their greatest, victory, hence why the situation is fragile. This is why people are against it. The war on terror has already cost enough people their lives, and this has the potential to make an already dire situation even worse. In truth, its not worth the risk, especially if avoiding that risk is as easy as Imam choosing a different location.

This is why people don't want the Islamic community center, or "mosque" built at this location. It sends the wrong message to the extremists, and I don't think Imam is being mindful of this consequence. In truth, this whole undertaking is not about Imam's rights to build on that property. The issue of him having clearance or the rights is already known. You don't need to argue that again, we already know. People who oppose it want him to reconsider it because of the kind of message that is being sent here.

Alright, then... um, wouldn't the fear of Extremist reaction to the Mosque also generate support from the terrorists? If they influence our decisions in one way or another then by definition they've succeeded in their campaign, since the whole point of a TERRORIST organisation is to create TERROR in a country. If we're not doing something because we're afraid of how they'll respond to it...

The best thing we could do in response to them is simply ignore their opinion and views on the matter and just follow what our constitution dictates we should do (which, by the way, is to build the Mosque, if they want to build it). Stop letting the terrorists influence your opinion on what our country should or shouldn't do.

Short answer: No.

Long answer: It's impossible to exercise the 'Separation of Church and State' without the State taking a pro-agnostic view on their political views. The entire idea of separation of the Church from the State is a non-theistic one, so to exercise it is to be pro-agnostic. You're looking for a combination of mutually exclusive conditions, which isn't possible.

The government isn't allowed to take a strictly atheist stance, though, since unlike agnostics, atheism is the belief that there is no god (which is contrary to the agnostics, who claim that they don't have enough proof to believe in one... the difference is subtle, but significant). USSR actually did not exercise separation of the church and state, because they enforced a religion upon the people - the belief that there is no god.

As much as people want to claim that atheism isn't a religion, it IS centered on a solid belief against a god, and their lives are dictated by this belief. If the person simply doesn't believe there's a god then they're probably agnostic, not atheistic. I've been corrected by many, many agnostic & atheistic people on this point, and that's the consensus I've been forced to accept, at this time, so if you call yourself an atheist and are describing what I'm calling an agnostic then this is just so we can understand where I'm coming from. Semantics can muddy an argument faster than religion, if we let them go unchecked.

So yeah, separation of church and state implies it's not going to support atheism, but the very fact that a country employs the separation of church and state means it's supporting agnosticism, by definition.

At 8/20/10 10:44 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 8/20/10 10:32 PM, Kwing wrote: Skeptics aren't really skeptical. They just want to listen to other people talk about things they don't believe so that they can't start a fight... And I think they know they can't change anyone's mind.

Real skeptics should always be open.

Please replace the word "skeptic" with "Scotsman".

Thank you. :)

... *chuckle*...

In all seriousness, though, I believe trying to convince people of your own position using text on a screen doesn't take anyone too far, since everyone has the ability to shut their eyes and ignore a comment (which is a very common response to something adverse, like evidence contrary to their current belief). Thus, simply typing the facts can only take you as far as the reader will allow you to (which is only as far as they feel comfortable answering to, which isn't far at all). Readers will hide to real confrontation, either ignoring arguments or arguming the same points ad nausam.

'Being a dick' can change this natural reflex to one of restlessness and the urge to fight back, so ironically it could help the reader actually pay some attention to the posts (for a time). The real problem is knowing when to stop - take the asshattery too far and the reader will think you're ignoring his/her argument and 'give up on you', which kills the conversation.

Being a dick has it's place, but resist the temptation of taking it too far (as much fun as that is). Successful asshattery is an art form, and one that I've rarely had the pleasure to witness in action. When you see an asshattery artist performing his/her magic, though, it's a sight to behold.

At 8/20/10 11:35 PM, Malachy wrote: As things change, both parties have changed to stay popular. They have a "core" base that they can count on and they pander to them during primaries (like you see happening now), but during general election, the rhetoric becomes who's the most centrist.

Game theoretically speaking, this is correct. In fact, the Nash Equilibrium position that any president could hold is, indeed, a 100% centrist position, so to represent oneself as anything other than a centrist is folly, for the sake of winning an election.

At 8/20/10 04:12 AM, bgraybr wrote: Even if it is impossible to make a society perfectly equal, we can still attempt to represent all groups of people (rather than the majority). The other 20% of people in our society still have rights.

That's fine, except when the opinion of one group is mutually exclusive to the opinion of the other. I wish we could come to an agreement and say "Let's both keep the crosses on the side of the road as not to interfere with their religious practice and remove the crosses from the road to comply with the atheists non-religious belief", but that's not possible. It makes less sense to follow the minority in this case (which is actually closer to 2-5%, not 20% - atheists generally hold that view that strictly, not other non-Christian groups) than the majority simply because it doesn't represent what America wants, but what a few interested parties want.

You can only go so far to represent groups as equally as possible. There comes a point where it's impossible to do so, so why would you follow the minority rather than the majority, in those cases? It makes little logical sense.

Banning images of Buddha is nothing like this situation... we're not banning crosses, we're asking them to be removed from government property.

... you're banning crosses from public property. That's pretty close to what I said, isn't it, banning images of Buddha from public property vs banning crosses from public property? The only difference that I'm trying to make is that atheists are instigating the ban on one side while Christians are instigating it on the other. The reasoning is the same (It conflicts with my own beliefs in the same way as crosses represent a conflict in atheists beliefs), so there should be no difference between the two when you evaluate them. If there is, ask yourself why.

It would be biased in favor of Atheists if they had the crosses taken down and replaced with Atheist symbols.

Atheists don't have special symbols for a religion, to my knowledge (those that I know tell me that they don't, anyway), since they believe there is no representable 'god', so that's sort of a pot shot, there (ouch, nice one). Sure, the situation would be much worse if it were possible for the grave to be replaced by some sort of atheist symbol, but just because one situation is worse than another doesn't mean that the current situation isn't bad, on it's own.That's a non sequitur argument, there, which skirts around my statement without actually addressing it.

I don't understand how removing religious symbols at an atheist's request is not biased.

Let me ask you something real quick, to see if we're on the same page. How do you define 'church'? If you define it as the Christian church (or some combination of religions) then sure; removing the crosses will successfully separate the 'church' from the state. If you're speaking more for any religion and belief then imposing atheism is just as bad as imposing Christianity, isn't it? The state will be supporting either one belief or another, so what gives atheism a special pardon in this situation? Atheism is the belief that there is no god, so removing anything that represents a god is an action that supports atheism.

"Separation of Church and State" only goes as far as the First Amendment in America, so masking your argument with that will only take us back to that argument (which, as I've already told you, is only infringed by the atheists that are preventing Christians from practicing their faith, not by Christians putting their symbols on public property). If you want equality, then allow atheists to respect their dead on the side of the road in any way they see fit. That doesn't infringe anyone's right to practice religion, and everyone is getting equal treatment, here.

I can look at situations from other perspectives, that's why I'm actually talking this through with you and haven't called you ignorant.

*bows* Much appreciated. I will admit you're relatively level headed with your argument, so I'm lightening my tone, here. Kudos.

At 8/20/10 03:02 AM, bgraybr wrote: Isn't allowing anyone to practice their belief without persecution is the same as having a completely unbiased society?

Nope. I allow Pastafarians and Scientologists to practice their own belief without attempting to repress them in any way, but I'm terribly biased in my opinion against them. Given the chance, I'd question them and discuss how they could believe the crap that they do, but I wouldn't restrict or repress them from believing it. Asking for an entity to be unbiased would be to ask them to make all of their decisions outside of the opinion of every other person, which is virtually impossible (the government is made up of people, too, and people cannot get rid of their biases - they can only change them in favor of one thing or another).

One is a feasible task that Americans should strive for. The other is impossible.

At 8/20/10 03:02 AM, bgraybr wrote:

Have you considered the fact that the government is not an individual and does not have freedom of speech? It is unconstitutional for the government to make decisions biased towards any particular group of people, and that's all I was trying to say.

I have considered that, and I agree that the government isn't a person, and thus doesn't hold the same rights as one.

Have you considered that an action that bans all crosses from the highway is a 'biased opinion' in favor of atheism performed by the government, while the status quo is a 'biased opinion' toward the majority of America, not just a religious group (Christians still make up over 80% of the population, you know)? Or, perhaps, that removing crosses from the road (that the government had in no way participated in erecting) is restricting the Christian people from practicing their own faith? It's the equivalent of Christians telling the government to ban images of Buddha because it isn't representative of their own beliefs, and the government responded to it by making a law banning the use of images of Buddha in public spaces. Wouldn't you see that as an infringement on Buddhists right to express their own religion (or other people's right to criticize the stupidity of assigning an arbitrary numbers and images with so much meaning)?

It's harder to see what the truth is when the action directly favors your own position. Look at it from a perspective that doesn't favor your bias and try to make your same arguments. You'll find it difficult (if not impossible) to do so.

Since I'm on the topic in another thread, I may as well post this here.

First Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Perhaps it's 'rude' or 'inappropriate' for the Islam temple to go up there, but it's illegal for the government or the city to prevent it's construction, according to our constitutional amendment, there. One point may be arguably correct, but the other one is not, so not even the loudest, largest majority of people can stop it with any amount of petitioning unless they want to reform the constitution and remove the first amendment altogether.

Why is this even an issue people want to discuss? It's not like it'll do anyone any good (in fact, all it'll accomplish is anger and pointless banter, as is proven in this thread - not really beneficial to anyone).

At 8/20/10 02:23 AM, bgraybr wrote: The amendment says "law" but I think that the underlying meaning/purpose was to prevent bias against any belief system by the government- what other purpose could that amendment possibly serve? Yay for being completely literal in your interpretation.

Hmm, perhaps it could've been to, you know, allow anyone and everyone to practice their religion without the fear or risk of being oppressed by any outside individuals/entities (that's what the 'literal' interpretation would result in)? Considering the definition you want to adopt is mutually exclusive to the later statement "...or prohibiting thereof...", I'm going to guess that the 'underlying meaning' is nothing more than an opinion of what you want the constitution to support.

Mine isn't an opinion. I stated the amendment and simply pointed out what actions were directly violating it and what actions were not. There's no room for interpretation, as far as that goes (as much as you'd like there to be).

Also, notice the use of the words 'I think...' in your argument (and the lack of it in mine). We've now entered the mysterious realm of your subjective opinion on what something should be, and are trying to apply it to a reality that may or may not share that same opinion or belief. Understandably, you're allowed to hold and state your own belief on such matters (the First Amendment protects that right for you, "...or abridging the freedom of speech..."), but assuming everyone else in this country holds what you think to be true as the truth is asinine, at best (and malicious, at worst, but I'd like to think you're acting out of ignorance rather than malice).

At 8/20/10 01:57 AM, bgraybr wrote:

At 8/20/10 01:49 AM, Gario wrote: First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yes, and...

Religious crosses designed to respect the dead do not violate this (even in public spaces), since the government is not making a law that respects the establishment of any religion. Banning crosses from the freeway is a violation of the amendment, since it prohibits the free exercise of a religion.

The government is still showing a bias towards Christianity by placing religious symbols in public places. The freeway is obviously government property and should be completely secular.

Read the amendment again, please. The government supposedly has a bias for Christianity (although their decision actually shows the opposite is true, at the moment, but that's beside the point). A bias is not a law. I'm sorry you want the First Amendment to say "The Government will not respect the establishment of any religion", but that's not what it says.

Good job at reaffirming your ignorance.

For the most part you're in the clear - rearranging something that's licensed and releasing it onto Newgrounds is considered a fan-based work, according to standard copyright law, so Newgrounds has nothing to worry about if some uppity producer wanted to sue Newgrounds.

It is unacceptable, however, to post the unaltered work of someone else and masquerade as the original artist (like this guy tends to do - seriously, I can find the real artist to nearly every single Audio post he's ever made, if you want me to... ). The original artists take offense whenever their work is passed off as someone elses, and it does nothing to help their own credibility.

Don't worry about your stuff too much unless it's unaltered. To be safe (and respectful) you can include where you obtained the material in your track - most artists appreciate it when you do that.

At 8/20/10 01:22 AM, bgraybr wrote: Why is it intolerant to want religion kept separate from the government? That's the only thing that those "intolerant" Atheists you mentioned have ever wanted to do. Religious symbols should not be displayed by the government.

First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Religious crosses designed to respect the dead do not violate this (even in public spaces), since the government is not making a law that respects the establishment of any religion. Banning crosses from the freeway is a violation of the amendment, since it prohibits the free exercise of a religion.

Learn your country's constitution.

Har, I forget how funny many philosophy/politics/etc. forums can be.

Fine then, I'll play along for a second, Mezmorize (even if you are trolling - I think trolls are fun, especially those that try to sound intelligent). What does the cross on the road symbolize, from a purely secular point of view? For the sake of this argument specifically, the cross cannot represent any religion, since that would also elicit the ban for being unconstitutional (and would really be a redundant point to take, because of that). What does the symbol represent to you, and why?

So far all you've done is point out a bunch of random facts and thrown them at the problem. Let's see where application of these facts take us, shall we?

At 8/19/10 01:25 PM, Ganon-Dorf wrote:

At 8/19/10 01:21 AM, Gario wrote: Here's the problem with that theory:
They assume all people are equal.

Care to elaborate on that?

Certainly.

Every single point made in that theory relies on the assumption that every single human being is equal in ability, needs, neuroticism, etc., when it's a proven fact that people are not equal in many/most of these regards (Spearman's General Intelligence Factor and Gardener's Multiple Intelligences both prove that people are different in intelligence and performance, at the very least). Thus, nearly every single point that is brought up doesn't reflect reality at all.

The underlining assumption can (and has been) easily proven as a false premise. Thus, even if the logic and conclusions were correct (they probably aren't, but let's assume they are) they do not relate to the 'problem' of money, at all.

Here's the problem with that theory:
They assume all people are equal.

I believe my earlier post referred to any popularity-based system, so what I said still holds in it's entirety. Newgrounds is an entirely public voting system, so there's no way we can know the musical experience of the general voting population. The people that review the music often lean towards being experienced musicians, but that says little about the general voters.

Let's look at the other voting system and observe the law of averages in action. We have a mediocre band that has a fanbase that will 'vote a 5' on everything they do. This will draw the attention to everyone who's shopping for music, so others will check it out. Their mediocrity will show forth and those people will vote based on how they felt about it. How many more laypeople are there than the 'fanboys'?

I'm going to throw out a number here - probably over 100x more laypeople than fanboys of any particular band (and that's a huge understatement, for the most part). The law of averages essentially says that because the average person's vote is so much larger than the fanboys, their vote will be what is reflected on the consensus. So despite the fanboy attempt to artificially raise the 'score', that score will be an average one.

If I were to ignore mixing/mastering... I think you missed my comment on that earlier (which shouldn't be tossed out as an 'opinion'). Aside from that, the law of averages will balance the opinions, the trolling, the educated voting, the average voting and everything in between out, so in the end you'll have a number that accurately represents 'how good' the music is in as objective a manner as possible.

What is 'Musical Taste'? It's the culmination of neural pattern recognition networks that form in the brain, associating familiar patterns with something 'you like' and unfamiliar patterns with something 'you don't like' (a limbic inclination formed due to the advantage being wary of the unfamiliar really ha). Thus, the more you listen to music (and recognize the patterns, unconsciously) the more varied your 'musical taste' becomes.

At 8/17/10 06:45 PM, WizMystery wrote:
I actually meant in regards to the music and the composition itself. Though technological elements are important a lot of people measure the value based on the music

Mixing & mastering is a part of the composition of music, so discluding them is naive. Music isn't music until it's received by the listener, and because the production is vital to the reception of the track it really must be considered as a part of the composition itself, not as an afterthought.

As for the system, there are some flaws to it (Zero-bombers, people who use subjective taste to downrank a track, self-boosting, etc.), but because of the public ability to vote on something at leisure the law of averages will win out over the deviants. If a track is being self voted tot he top one way or another then it'll attract the attention of the masses and be voted back to the place it should be. If the song is actually pretty good (but someone zerobombs it first thing) then others can (and, in my experience so far, will) vote it back to it's proper place. Because people have the ability to vote on any track they want the number of honest, objective opinions will weigh heavily against the people that abuse the system.

I think it's about as good as it's going to get, considering what it is. A self-regulated system where people vote others in or out will, over the long run, balance the issues out just fine.

At 8/17/10 07:22 PM, WizMystery wrote: This is where musical taste comes in, however. What if the artist has a taste unlike anybody else, and therefore cannot transfer his emotions to anyone? Is he then supposed to change his style, or continue what he is doing?

If the person is writing music that only s/he enjoys (as unlikely as that is, considering the way music works in the mind) then so be it - they're writing music only they enjoy. Depending on what they want to do with their music, they may continue to write music only for themselves (if they don't care about public opinion and, therefore, the music business as a whole) or they may adapt and adjust their style to fit some criteria that an audience will understand, appreciate and enjoy. Writing for yourself is one thing; writing for an audience is a whole other experience.