25
   

Critical thinking and political matters.

 
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 08:11 am
@kennethamy,
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.
shivam7
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 08:12 am
@RealEyes,
hey hi folks,
m new to this forum......
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 08:29 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

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.


There is no such thing as a correctly-framed issue or an incorrectly-framed issue.

But how can that possibly be when, as I have just pointed out, the way you framed the issue has not even an scintilla of evidence to support it? Have you any reason to think that the way you framed the issue has any real chance of being right? Answer, no. (And what did Pat Robertson have to do with it?)
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 08:34 am
@shivam7,
Hey shivam.

Hope you contribute.

Don't take anything too seriously and keep your mind open to contrasting opinions and you'll get a lot out of the forum.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 08:34 am
@kennethamy,
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.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 08:35 am
@shivam7,
shivam7 wrote:

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


Welcome


now jump in shivam.

But don't expect us to go easy just because you are new.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 08:41 am
And on another note related to critical thinking and politics -

A new poll shows 18% of Americans think Obama is a muslim and 26% of Americans think muslims can't be patriotic.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 08:43 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

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.


Think you could just mention some of the evidence that you allege I am ignoring? Or do you think that the evidence that those people who are opposed to the structure are discriminating on the basis of religion simply because they are opposed to the structure? I would not be surprised if you thought that mere opposition constituted evidence of discrimination.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 08:58 am
@kennethamy,
Quote:
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.


Quote:
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."
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 09:02 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

I would not be surprised if you thought that mere opposition constituted evidence of discrimination.
What do you call it?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 09:05 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

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.
U imply that Con Ed has a duty to sell
its real estate to MOslems. Is that a little dum ??



parados wrote:
On what legal basis could Con Ed not sell the property to a muslim group?
On the legal basis of simply keeping and retaining their real property intact.



parados wrote:
Not selling because they are muslim would be a violation of their rights.
What u claim woud ONLY make sense if Con Ed has already offered its realty for sale to the public.
If that has HAPPENED, then u r correct. Did it ??





David
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 09:36 am
@Intrepid,
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?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 09:39 am
@OmSigDAVID,
David, I was arguing against this statement.

Quote:
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.


Ken listed a reason for Con Ed refusing to sell and that reason was not "to retain their property rights" but rather is to prevent the building of the mosque.
IRFRANK
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 09:48 am
The president did come out later and mention the very fact you mentioned about there being a difference between legal right and right. Of course there is a difference. The mosque builders clearly have a legal right to build under our laws. The ethical question of right in it's simplest forms most likely would yield the same answer. I see no ethical reason why they can't build anywhere they wish. 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, it would be considerate to not build on a site that close to ground zero. If I was involved in the decision regarding that property or the mosque itself, I would strongly oppose that location. But, I am not in that position. Also, how considerate is it to transfer our anger and hostility from the perpetrators of the 911 tragedy to the moderate muslims building the mosque.

Back to your original comment. I think it is you that is offering the 'red herring'. The president simply mentioned the obvious position that our government should take considering our religious freedoms. He did not pass judgment about right or wrong. Is that not his role as president? There is no law preventing the building. What mechanism would he have to prevent it's construction if he did oppose it's location?

Your comments are very transparent and only serve your need to place some blame with the president when he had nothing to do with this situation and has little power to influence it's outcome.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 09:54 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

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.


Razz already did it
0 Replies
 
Ahab
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 09:56 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

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.


Not sure why you addressed this to me. I was simply agreeing with Thomas that in a political issue like this one, each side tries to frame the issue in their favor.
Seems to me to be a very important aspect of any critical analysis of this issue.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 09:59 am
@IRFRANK,
IRF, The new community center is a few blocks away from ground zero, and cannot be seen from where they plan to build their center. How far away is sensitive enough for you? They already have/had prayer centers in the area.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 10:00 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

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.


Facts can and do influence emotion and acceptance of ideals. The more closely held the ideal the more difficult it would be to persuade someone with facts. Also emotions can be facts. The attachment to the ideal of reduced emotion is an emotion during philosophical pursuit. It is one strong enough for you to take the time to argue against what I have said. It takes quite a bit of commitment to the ideal to truely objectivly look at something assuming one isn't a sociopath.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 10:01 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

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?


Reason for opposition?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 10:01 am
@IRFRANK,
Quote:
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,


How can one be concerned for a position deeply rooted in irrationality and bigotry? When there's no logical or ethical reasoning behind something, the 'emotion' on display is usually a cover for something more nefarious; and it's always a bad way to make policy.

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/04/2020 at 12:02:22