Critical thinking and political matters.

@Cycloptichorn,

Its not sad.

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Its not sad.

I am sad for you, Bigot. I pity you and your ignorance. That someone who claims to be smart would act in such an idiotic and paranoid fashion.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
It even tried arguing that if anyone tried to stop it, that would be illegal. (That was the red herring argument of Obama's Ramadan speech).

It WOULD be illegal to stop it, and it's not a red herring in any way. It's against the law to discriminate based on religion.

Cycloptichorn

It is not be illegal to try to stop it by the use of public opinion (as was done) but it would not be legal to argue that the group did not have the right to erect the building. But, in a democracy, the use of public opinion is never illegal, since it is protected by the First Amendment. And, apparently it has been stopped by public opinion. If you think that is illegal you are free to sue.

I didn't claim that that was illegal, so why would I sue? And, I would point out, neither did Obama.

I do think this whole thing is ginned up by a bunch of closeted and not-so-closeted bigots, who were looking for a hot-button item to get the mouth-breathers riled up about in advance of the Fall elections. Sad to see just how effective they are at doing that.

Cycloptichorn

You said it was illegal to stop it (I think you said something about discrimination?) and it has (apparently) been stopped, so you must think that something illegal has be done. And the courts are open to all. Of course, Obama devoted his Ramadan speech to arguing a non-issue (that it was legal to build) and by doing that, he diverted attention from the real issue, which was whether is was the right thing to build on that site.

You are free to have and to express your opinion that this is all a right wing conspiracy (to invoke the deathless words of Hilary) and all you need to do is support that opinion. And when you have done that (and taken legal action against public opinion for discrimination) I'll think about taking your views seriously. And that's a promise.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

kennethamy, Your assumptions are based on fiction; we're not arguing about the right to protest. We're basing our argument on the right of any religion to build a church/temple/synagogue/mosque on any land in the US where it's not legally prohibited. You're talking about feelings and sensitivity; we're talking about ethical, logical, and rights.

No one has disputed the right of anyone to build anything they like on that site. So why are you insisting that there is such a right? I know what legal rights are. What are ethical and logical rights? I think you are (again) confusing two different things: 1. The right to build on that site (which no one disputes) and, 2. Whether it is right to build on that site, which is the focus of the dispute. Once you recognize that distinction, your confusion will dissipate. "Logical right" makes no sense. What you may mean by "ethical right" is "the right thing to do" , but that is not a kind of right. It is an ethical action. The only rights are legal rights. And, to repeat, those were never in dispute.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

Believe me when I say that I couldn't give two shits over whether you take my opinions seriously, Kenneth. Your 'critical thinking' on this matter seems to consist mostly of thinly-veiled political comments and intentional misreadings of what people wrote. You haven't really displayed anything since arriving at A2K which would make me care about whether or not you took my comments seriously.

I stated that it would be illegal to stop the construction. And right now, the construction hasn't been 'stopped' by any outside force, other than the fact that the people who are building it decided not to. That's not the point that either I or Obama was making.

As to the morality of building it on that site, I think that those who have a problem with it are mostly idiots and bigots. It isn't at ground zero in the slightest; it isn't some sort of Hallowed Ground. Just another way for bigots to express their bigotry, this time wrapping themselves in the flag while doing it, which is disgusting.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
It even tried arguing that if anyone tried to stop it, that would be illegal.
(That was the red herring argument of Obama's Ramadan speech).
Cycloptichorn wrote:

It WOULD be illegal to stop it, and it's not a red herring in any way.
It's against the law to discriminate based on religion.

Cycloptichorn

Not necessarily; it is in some ways, but not in others.
It depends on how u do it.

David

It is illegal to discriminate on religious grounds however you do it. If you mean it may be possible to conceal (in some way) such discrimination, that does not, in anyway, show that it is legal to do so. That would be like saying that it is legal to steal if you can get away with it.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Its not sad.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I am sad for you, Bigot.

If u 'd asked, I 'd have saved u
the trouble of sadness, -- what 's the OPPOSITE of " bi Gott "?
Foot kisser, I guess. Smooch, smooch! This little piggy went to market . . .

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I pity you and your ignorance.

EVERYONE is ignorant, F'art.
There is a lot more out there than any of us knows about.
U can pity EVERYONE, if u have nothing better to do.
See if I care.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That someone who claims to be smart

Yeah, smart enuf to know when our enemies r giving us the finger, F'art.
It does not take much I.Q. to pick that up, but more than yours.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

would act in such an idiotic and paranoid fashion.Cycloptichorn

Yeah, 9/11/1 was only a paranoid delusion
and the Moslem training camps in Afganistan r only paranoid dreams, right ??

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Hey, OSD, you're catching on! You don't even have to write it the way you do; everybody does it, and so do animals.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Ug. Me no like muslims. Me smart. Ug.

0 Replies

Before 9/11/1, I never cared whether anyone was a Moslem.

I 've never cared much about anyone else 's religion; has nothing to do with me.

I don't have a vendetta against the Moslems,
but I do n't necessarily want them standing behind me.

David

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

A "red herring" is, of course, an attempt (intentional or not) to divert discussion from the real issue to an issue that appears to be the issue at hand, but is not. A shining example of that is President Obama's recent speech which supported building a mosque by a group of Muslims very near the site of the 9/11 attack which murdered so many people. President Obama argued that just as any members of a religion have the right to build a religious structure at the site, so do Muslims.

But that argument is a red herring, for no one is disputing the legal or constitutional right of Muslim (or any other group) to build whatever they please to build at that, or any other site. What is being disputed is whether it is right for them to do so.

But the highlighted sentence is simply not true. The latest polls show that nearly 30% of those New Yorkers opposing the building of the mosque believe that this group of Muslims does not have a constitutional right to build there.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/08/18/national/a064758D42.DTL

I see no red herring here.

1 Reply

@Ahab,

Ahab wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

A "red herring" is, of course, an attempt (intentional or not) to divert discussion from the real issue to an issue that appears to be the issue at hand, but is not. A shining example of that is President Obama's recent speech which supported building a mosque by a group of Muslims very near the site of the 9/11 attack which murdered so many people. President Obama argued that just as any members of a religion have the right to build a religious structure at the site, so do Muslims.

But that argument is a red herring, for no one is disputing the legal or constitutional right of Muslim (or any other group) to build whatever they please to build at that, or any other site. What is being disputed is whether it is right for them to do so.

But the highlighted sentence is simply not true. The latest polls show that nearly 30% of those New Yorkers opposing the building of the mosque believe that this group of Muslims does not have a constitutional right to build there.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/08/18/national/a064758D42.DTL

I see no red herring here.

It is a red herring because whatever is believed, and however many believe it, it is not true that of whether it is legal or illegal to build the mosque is the issue. It doesn't matter that some believe it is at issue. That doesn't make it true that it is, anymore than believing anything makes it true.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
In a democracy, public opinion always has a place, and ought to have a place. That is part of what a democracy is. It is nonsense to think that after a representative is elected those who elected him have no business letting him know what they think about matters he is going to deal with. How else can the representative represent those who elected him, unless they let him know what they believe about what he is going to represent them on? What is he supposed to do, use ESP?

That's an interesting argument kennie. Didn't you argue that the Constitution has no bearing in this argument because it has nothing to do with the government? Now you are arguing that this is an issue that does involve the government because we are a democracy.

As soon as you involve the use of the government it is a constitutional issue and the will of the majority is tempered by the Constitution.

The will of the majority, and all the people is thwarted by the constitution... The thing enumerates property rights which we have fought a civil war over more certainly than it enumerates human rights; and though inertia was built into the constitution, one now has to move parties before thinking of moving government.... Where those who approved the constitution had an expected one representative for every 30 K of people, now each one represents over 600K because of extra constitutional changes the Supreme Court passed on... Our house, the peoples house has made itself a sellers market... We have to exhaust every force for change in organization in order to move government... That is not the constitution that was approved at the beginning... Even with parties, and corruption; so long as there were spoils there was the expectation that government would serve the needs of the people, or fall... Bureaucrats as much as elected officials run government, and only gross misbehavior can get them fired...They should go as the government goes to ensure the sewer gets flushed out once in a while... It does not work... People find it impossible to organzie and we should know why... That does not mean they are satisfied or not angry..

2 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

parados wrote:

Quote:
In a democracy, public opinion always has a place, and ought to have a place. That is part of what a democracy is. It is nonsense to think that after a representative is elected those who elected him have no business letting him know what they think about matters he is going to deal with. How else can the representative represent those who elected him, unless they let him know what they believe about what he is going to represent them on? What is he supposed to do, use ESP?

That's an interesting argument kennie. Didn't you argue that the Constitution has no bearing in this argument because it has nothing to do with the government? Now you are arguing that this is an issue that does involve the government because we are a democracy.

As soon as you involve the use of the government it is a constitutional issue and the will of the majority is tempered by the Constitution.

The will of the majority, and all the people is thwarted by the constitution... The thing enumerates property rights which we have fought a civil war over more certainly than it enumerates human rights; and though inertia was built into the constitution, one now has to move parties before thinking of moving government.... Where those who approved the constitution had an expected one representative for every 30 K of people, now each one represents over 600K because of extra constitutional changes the Supreme Court passed on... Our house, the peoples house has made itself a sellers market... We have to exhaust every force for change in organization in order to move government... That is not the constitution that was approved at the beginning... Even with parties, and corruption; so long as there were spoils there was the expectation that government would serve the needs of the people, or fall... Bureaucrats as much as elected officials run government, and only gross misbehavior can get them fired...They should go as the government goes to ensure the sewer gets flushed out once in a while... It does not work... People find it impossible to organzie and we should know why... That does not mean they are satisfied or not angry..

More New Yorkers are opposed to building a mosque near Ground Zero, despite the fact they haven't been following the issue all that closely, according to a new poll that cound have some implications for the Governor's race

1 Reply

In the Republican primary for governor next month
I m voting for Paladino because he opposed the mosque
and he is against gun control.

David

2 Replies

Isn't it ironic, that those who want to build the mosque claim that it is for the sake of "bringing people together"? And this has proved to be the most divisive issue in a long time. And, isn't it strange that those who claim they are trying to bring people together are insisting on pursuing this which divides people and builds up resentment, more a more. It make one wonder at their real motives.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Isn't it ironic, that those who want to build the mosque claim that it is for the sake of "bringing people together"? And this has proved to be the most divisive issue in a long time. And, isn't it strange that those who claim they are trying to bring people together are insisting on pursuing this which divides people and builds up resentment, more a more. It make one wonder at their real motives.

As opposed to the 'real motives' behind those who oppose the mosque, such as yourself? Why the false pretense at neutrality here?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

It is totally within the realm of critical thinking to appeal to emotion and appeal to concensus if those appeal will logically achieve the desired result. An appeal to emotion is not necessarily an emotional appeal. An appeal to concensus in the U.S. is an appeal to what the concensus thinks is the root of being American, if it were not there would not be a vote. Both appeals are logical appeals for achieving the desired results and require critical thinking to do properly. The real fallacy discussed here is roping the term critical thinking to a very limited axiomatic ideal. It is a process, not a religion.

2 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

parados wrote:

Quote:
In a democracy, public opinion always has a place, and ought to have a place. That is part of what a democracy is. It is nonsense to think that after a representative is elected those who elected him have no business letting him know what they think about matters he is going to deal with. How else can the representative represent those who elected him, unless they let him know what they believe about what he is going to represent them on? What is he supposed to do, use ESP?

That's an interesting argument kennie. Didn't you argue that the Constitution has no bearing in this argument because it has nothing to do with the government? Now you are arguing that this is an issue that does involve the government because we are a democracy.

As soon as you involve the use of the government it is a constitutional issue and the will of the majority is tempered by the Constitution.

The will of the majority, and all the people is thwarted by the constitution... The thing enumerates property rights which we have fought a civil war over more certainly than it enumerates human rights; and though inertia was built into the constitution, one now has to move parties before thinking of moving government.... Where those who approved the constitution had an expected one representative for every 30 K of people, now each one represents over 600K because of extra constitutional changes the Supreme Court passed on... Our house, the peoples house has made itself a sellers market... We have to exhaust every force for change in organization in order to move government... That is not the constitution that was approved at the beginning... Even with parties, and corruption; so long as there were spoils there was the expectation that government would serve the needs of the people, or fall... Bureaucrats as much as elected officials run government, and only gross misbehavior can get them fired...They should go as the government goes to ensure the sewer gets flushed out once in a while... It does not work... People find it impossible to organzie and we should know why... That does not mean they are satisfied or not angry..

The constitution (now and as it was approved in the beginning) contains provisions for majority rule, while at the same time guaranteeing that minority rights are not violated.

The constitution writers spoke against a "tyranny of the majority."

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

It is a red herring because whatever is believed, and however many believe it, it is not true that of whether it is legal or illegal to build the mosque is the issue. It doesn't matter that some believe it is at issue. That doesn't make it true that it is, anymore than believing anything makes it true.

But that is not what you claimed in the OP. You said this was an example of a red herring “for no one is disputing the constitutionality of the building of the mosque”. Yet it is a fact that nearly one third of those New Yorkers opposing this building do dispute that it would be constitutional to build the mosque at that site. If one is to argue effectively against those opponents, the constitutional issue has to be dealt with.

And the article I linked to mentions one other important fact: those supporting the building of the mosque do so because they see it as a constitutional issue. You may not believe that to be a good reason for supporting the building, but that doesn’t make it a red herring.

There is more to this dispute than the constitutional question, but it is one of the issues in this dispute. And that isn’t at all surprising: such political disputes usually involve several different issues.

I see no red herring here.

0 Replies

Critical thinking and political matters.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know