Critical thinking and political matters.

@Thomas,

congratulations!

0 Replies

@Ahab,

Being justifiably offended seems to be an oxymoron. Where is the justification? What qualifies the justfication other than an appeal to law or an appeal to a statistical consensus? An appeal to the constitution seems more solid than an appeal to the masses, but it is still an appeal to the ephemeral. I have in previous post expressed how an appeal to it is an appeal to an ideal and not to a tangible thing. Also, the constitution was created by an appeal to the masses by people who were offended at the set of laws (ideals and ramifications of a set of laws) to which they "should" have upheld. What makes the constitutional laws better than the laws of King George which they replaced?

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

Quote:

What makes the constitutional laws better than the laws of King George which they replaced?

The same thing that makes Ahab's argument better than yours.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Yes ethics are slippery and eventually everyone can be Hitler. A final solution on biggots is an expression of biggotry. Although I would express more of a practical multi-generational educational solution erradicating the source of ignorance not so much rounding up and gassing the genetic source.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

But I have given reasons for thinking that is false.

Not valid ones. You've just thrown some illogical twaddle around.

Quote:
It is the people who are insisting on erecting on that site who are being blamed.

Because bigots are equating them with the 9/11 bombers. Not because the people in question have anything wrong with them.

Quote:
Only those directly involved are to blame form erecting a building which is a symbol of defiance, and justification of 9/11

You are proving your bigotry with every time you repeat this. How can it be a symbol of defiance and justification of 9/11 unless you are linking these people with 9/11? You are confirming what I wrote is in fact true.

You decided that it was a symbol of defiance. You decided that it was 'justification of 9/11.' They didn't declare that.

Cycloptichorn

Because bigots are equating them with the 9/11 bombers. Not because the people in question have anything wrong with them.

The present issue is not why they are being blamed, but whether it is true that all Muslims are being blamed. Since only the builders are being blamed, it is not true that all Muslims are being blamed.

Now whether it is true that they are being blamed for being Muslims, and not, as I said, for wanting to erect a mosque so near the 9/11 is something for which you have absolutely no evidence at all. And calling opponent of the site "bigots" is just name calling, proves nothing, and, in fact begs the question, since it assumes exactly what is at issue.

I don't know what you mean by "connecting" these people with 9/11. Obviously if the builders wanted to build just an office building, if anyone objected, there would be justified suspicion that it was because they were Muslims. But it is not a neutral office building they are proposing to build. It is a mosque, a symbol of their faith. And it was on account of that faith that 9/11 occurred. An office building would not be seen as a symbol of defiance and justification, but it is perfectly understandable that a mosque should be seen that way. What is so hard to understand about that. I expect you do understand that perfectly well. But your own prejudices prevent you from acknowledging its validity. Aside from the motives of the builders, it was a thoughtless decision for them to propose the project. They should have done some advanced research about what the likely reaction would have been. But having made that mistake, to insist on it is not thoughtless. It is both stupid, and lends credence to those who are questioning their motive in the first place. Now, if they were not defiant before, they certainly are now. Why are they persisting? Is two former mayors of New York City bigots? Is the Governor of New York a bigot? Is the president who intimated that he thought it was not wise of them to build, is he a bigot? Is any one who in the least thinks they should not do this a bigot?

5 Replies

@kennethamy,

Quote:

Since only the builders are being blamed, it is not true that all Muslims are being blamed.

Since only the builders are building where they are being blamed, your argument is specious. Which muslim would be allowed to build there?

Quote:

But it is not a neutral office building they are proposing to build. It is a mosque, a symbol of their faith. And it was on account of that faith that 9/11 occurred. An office building would not be seen as a symbol of defiance and justification, but it is perfectly understandable that a mosque should be seen that way.

Actually, it's a community center that happens to have a small mosque in it. Why is a community center different from an office building that has a mosque in it?

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

Quote:

Is the president who intimated that he thought it was not wise of them to build, is he a bigot?

huh?

I guess when you get to make up your own facts kennie, you get to win any argument.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

Quote:

It is a mosque, a symbol of their faith. And it was on account of that faith that 9/11 occurred.

No, it was not. And your statements are bigoted. You are lumping all Muslims together, exactly as I accused you of earlier.

If this is what passes for 'critical thinking' with you, I'm sadly disappointed, because it is clear that you are casting about for justification for your bigotry, starting from a conclusion instead of searching for one.

Quote:

Is any one who in the least thinks they should not do this a bigot?

I think that those who claim there is something wrong with building this mosque are practicing soft bigotry, and that includes you. You are prejudiced towards Mulsims. If you want to blame that on 9.11, I don't care; it doesn't change the underlying fact that you are irrationally seeking to limit their right to practice their religion, in a building that they purchased for that purpose.

You haven't presented a single valid reason for why anyone should be against this group of people building a house of worship; not a single reason that doesn't attempt to tie them to 9/11 or all Muslims to 9/11.

Quote:

Now whether it is true that they are being blamed for being Muslims, and not, as I said, for wanting to erect a mosque so near the 9/11 is something for which you have absolutely no evidence at all.

Sure I do. You did it in your last post and have been doing it all along. You are assuming motives on the part of the builders that don't exist. You are casually equating ALL building of mosques in that area with some sort of 'defiance' or 'victory statement' on behalf of Muslims. There is no evidence at all to support your beliefs, other than Bigotry on your part.

Which I think you are well aware of. It's a little sad.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Your post was not put together with critical thinking, and as I read through it, I find myself thinking that no thinking was actually used in the preparation of the post.

You started this thread with a red herring accusing your President of a red herring and you have been on a downslide ever since.

[Bold & Red are indicated by me for emphasis only]

kennethamy wrote:

The present issue is not why they are being blamed, but whether it is true that all Muslims are being blamed. Since only the builders are being blamed, it is not true that all Muslims are being blamed.
Quote:

Are the builders Muslim?

Quote:
Now whether it is true that they are being blamed for being Muslims, and not, as I said, for wanting to erect a mosque so near the 9/11 is something for which you have absolutely no evidence at all. And calling opponent of the site "bigots" is just name calling, proves nothing, and, in fact begs the question, since it assumes exactly what is at issue.

Do you have evidence to the contrary? Do you have evidence that they are not bigots? Or, that you are not? You should read what you wrote following before you answer.

Quote:
I don't know what you mean by "connecting" these people with 9/11. Obviously if the builders wanted to build just an office building, if anyone objected, there would be justified suspicion that it was because they were Muslims. But it is not a neutral office building they are proposing to build. It is a mosque, a symbol of their faith. And it was on account of that faith that 9/11 occurred. An office building would not be seen as a symbol of defiance and justification, but it is perfectly understandable that a mosque should be seen that way. What is so hard to understand about that. I expect you do understand that perfectly well. But your own prejudices prevent you from acknowledging its validity.

It seems that their religion is the root of your objection. Why do you keep denying this when you write it for all to see. What is the difference if they want to build an office building or a Mosque or a Cultural Centre that houses a Mosque? How do you justify your separation of the differences when, in fact, there should be no difference.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

More importantly, they forget that a) they were not the terrorists (we have home-grown terrorists in the US), and b) they are 100% Americans like they are.

How can they justify denying them "equal rights under our laws?"

One of the more foolish aspect of their argument is "but they're Muslims." If that's the case, they should look inward and see what Christians have done over the centuries; including what the US has done to other countries.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

More importantly, they forget that a) they were not the terrorists (we have home-grown terrorists in the US), and b) they are 100% Americans like they are.

How can they justify denying them "equal rights under our laws?"

One of the more foolish aspect of their argument is "but they're Muslims." If that's the case, they should look inward and see what Christians have done over the centuries; including what the US has done to other countries.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

huh?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

More importantly, they forget that a) they were not the terrorists (we have home-grown terrorists in the US), and b) they are 100% Americans like they are.

How can they justify denying them "equal rights under our laws?"

One of the more foolish aspect of their argument is "but they're Muslims." If that's the case, they should look inward and see what Christians have done over the centuries; including what the US has done to other countries.

More importantly, they forget that a) they were not the terrorists (we have home-grown terrorists in the US), and b) they are 100% Americans like they are.

Red herring since no one is accusing them of being terrorists, or "100% Americans" (whatever that means).

One of the more foolish aspect of their argument is "but they're Muslims."

Again, red herring. No one has ever said that, and the fact that they are Muslims is no part of the argument against building the mosque. If you had substituted for "but they are Muslims" the words, "but it is a mosque" then that would be a part of the argument. But that they are Muslims has nothing to do with it.

How can they justify denying them "equal rights under our laws?"

As far as red herrings go you are batting 1,000! No one has said they do not have the right to build where they want to. Again, you confuse, having a right with exercising that rights. The original confusion.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

kennethamy wrote:

It is a mosque, a symbol of their faith.

Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was presumably a Christian. If he was, does that mean Christians can't build churches in Oklahoma City anymore? After all, churches are symbols of Timothy McVeigh's faith.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

No one has said they do not have the right to build where they want to.

Then there really is no problem. The Community Center and Mosque can be built there and those opposing it can stop their whining becaue they have yet to provide a legitimate reason for preventing this group of Muslims from exercsing their constittionally guaranted right to do so.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

That's a stretch Thomas...let's try another tack.

Quote:

“In his letter, McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would "improvise, adapt and overcome", if it turned out there was an afterlife. "If I'm going to hell," he wrote, "I'm gonna have a lot of company." His body is to be cremated and his ashes scattered in a secret location.”

2 Replies

@Ahab,

The point kennethamy is trying to make is that it is immoral to build the mosque, not that it is illegal to build the mosque.

3 Replies

@InfraBlue,

What has "immoral" have to do with anything? Who's standard of "immoral" are we using?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

The point kennethamy is trying to make is that it is immoral to build the mosque, not that it is illegal to build the mosque.

It's only immoral if you practice bigotry towards Muslims. I say that with confidence. I have yet to see anyone demonstrate a non-bigoted reason for why it's immoral to build the mosque.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@panzade,

What Tim may have said while in prison is not what he believed:

Quote:

They contend that McVeigh distanced himself from Christianity in an interview he gave to Time magazine in 2001.

Did he? Here's what he said:

Time: Are you religious?

McVeigh: I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.

Time: Do you believe in God?

McVeigh: I do believe in a God, yes. But that's as far as I want to discuss. If I get too detailed on some things that are personal like that, it gives people an easier way [to] alienate themselves from me and that's all they are looking for now.

All this text discloses is that McVeigh distanced himself from Catholicism, not Christianity. It also reveals that he did not want to discuss his faith further because he knew most people would find it repulsive. What was repulsive about his faith? Was he an atheist? No. Was he a secular humanist? No. What do we know about his beliefs at the time he was bombing the federal building in Oklahoma City?

1 Reply

Critical thinking and political matters.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know