Critical thinking and political matters.

Second of all, when you come up with some evidence that there was religious discrimination involved, please let me know so that I can take you seriously. Right now I regard you as just ranting.

Framing issues is one thing. What is the correct frame to frame them into is a very different thing.

kennethamy wrote:

Second of all, when you come up with some evidence that there was religious discrimination involved, please let me know so that I can take you seriously. Right now I regard you as just ranting.

Fortunately, I don't care what you regard me as, so I don't have to make that effort. Not for that reason, anyway.

kennethamy wrote:

Framing issues is one thing. What is the correct frame to frame them into is a very different thing.

There is no such thing as a correctly-framed issue or an incorrectly-framed issue. You just frame the issue in whatever terms you find most enlightening, and then you stick with the logic implicit in the framework.

Second of all, when you come up with some evidence that there was religious discrimination involved, please let me know so that I can take you seriously

(And what did Pat Robertson have to do with it?)

hey hi folks,
m new to this forum......

Quote:

Second of all, when you come up with some evidence that there was religious discrimination involved, please let me know so that I can take you seriously

Quote:

(And what did Pat Robertson have to do with it?)

This would be an example of Kennie ignoring evidence that doesn't support his position. He dismisses it by saying it has nothing to do with the issue even if others think it is quite relevant.

Yesterday Evangelical Pat Robertson claimed Islam is not a religion but a violent political system on his television program, The 700 Club. Robertson made the remarks while discussing the recent tragedy at Fort Hood. Robertson used the opportunity to disparage the entire Islamic religion because of the actions of one man.

On the March 13, 2006 broadcast of The 700 Club Robertson stated that Muslims want global domination and that the outpouring of rage elicited by cartoon drawings of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad " just shows the kind of people we're dealing with. These people are crazed fanatics, and I want to say it now:

I believe it's motivated by demonic power. It is Satanic and it's time we recognize what we're dealing with."

I would not be surprised if you thought that mere opposition constituted evidence of discrimination.

Quote:

Your very question here raises the difference between (1) having a right, and (2) its being right for someone to exercise the right. And that was the distinction my post was based on.

And you ignore the attempt to restrict someone's rights by influencing public opinion with lies and falsehoods.

Quote:

Arguing whether they ought to do it is not only an intellectual exercise, because if, for example, Consolidated Edison which owns a part of the site decides it would be wrong its property to the Muslim group, the building will not be erected on that site, and arguing whether the structure ought not to be built may persuade them not to sell the property.

Your example is not a way of making them change their mind. It is a back door way to restrict their rights [specificly WHICH rights?] by not letting them purchase property.

On what legal basis could Con Ed not sell the property to a muslim group?

Not selling because they are muslim would be a violation of their rights.

kennethamy wrote:

I would not be surprised if you thought that mere opposition constituted evidence of discrimination.

What do you call it?

Consolidated Edison which owns a part of the site decides it would be wrong its property to the Muslim group, the building will not be erected on that site, and arguing whether the structure ought not to be built may persuade them not to sell the property.

GoshisDead wrote:

as you pointed out the, OP was disingenuous in its argument.

How about rather than "pointing it out", justifying the accusation of disingenuity? First things first.

Ahab wrote:

Good points. As with most political issues, all sides are attempting to frame the issue to their advantage.

Even if it were true that it was a case of religious discrimination (by Pat Robertson? How did he come into it?) that does not mean that it was not, as a legal matter, a matter of constitutional rights. And what have the alleged motives of the opposition to do with that? Answer, nothing. Second of all, when you come up with some evidence that there was religious discrimination involved, please let me know so that I can take you seriously. Right now I regard you as just ranting.

Framing issues is one thing. What is the correct frame to frame them into is a very different thing. For example, I suppose you are framing the issue as a case of religious discrimination. Have you any evidence for that way of framing the issue? Not that I can tell. So, so far as I can tell, there is no reason to think that way of framing the matter is correct. So, on the contrary, it is an awful point, with nothing to back it up.

Quote:

I'm not rightly sure that there is a purely unemotional argument. Although its not an appeal to emotion per-se any axiom is by definition accepted without proof and deemed self evident. It is my opinion that a person will build their hypotheses and arguments from the emotion generated by their attachment to an ideal regarding that axiom or accept an axiom based on their emotional attachment to an ideal. Thus all arguments are arguments from emotion.

If this were true then no one would ever change their mind in a discussion.

I will agree, people often select facts to support their emotional bias but a reduced emotional attachment will allow them to accept presented facts that undermine their position and allow them to accept the opposite of their original position.

Intrepid wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

I would not be surprised if you thought that mere opposition constituted evidence of discrimination.

What do you call it?

Opposition?

Now in an emotional sense, and out of respect and concern for the feelings of the sufferers of 911 who see this mosque as an affront to their immense loss,