Critical thinking and political matters.

@Ahab,

Ahab wrote:

parados wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Courts decide on matters other than constitutional matters. Whether I owe money to a physician may go to a court, but that is hardly a constitutional matter.

Of course courts decide other things than constitutional matters. I never said they didn't.
This is NOT a case of owing money to a physician. This is a case that would be preventing the building of a mosque. It is a religious issue and that makes it a constitutional issue. No matter how you try to claim it isn't about religion the courts won't see it any differently.

Quite right. And that is why he had to claim in the OP that the right to freedom of religion is a red herring.

Is there a fallacy of claiming something to be a red herring when it really isn't a red herring?

0 Replies

@Ahab,

Ahab wrote:

parados wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Courts decide on matters other than constitutional matters. Whether I owe money to a physician may go to a court, but that is hardly a constitutional matter.

Of course courts decide other things than constitutional matters. I never said they didn't.
This is NOT a case of owing money to a physician. This is a case that would be preventing the building of a mosque. It is a religious issue and that makes it a constitutional issue. No matter how you try to claim it isn't about religion the courts won't see it any differently.

Quite right. And that is why he had to claim in the OP that the right to freedom of religion is a red herring.

Is there a fallacy of claiming something to be a red herring when it really isn't a red herring?

But since it is not (repeat not) a religious issue, that it is a religious issue is not a reason to think it is a constitutional issue. For, as I pointed out the fact that it is a Muslim structure has nothing to do with whether it should be erected. Proof, if it were a Shriner Temple, or an Elks Lodge, and if a group of Shriners had done the 9/11 atrocity, or if a group of the Royal Order of the Elks had committed the atrocity, the very same objections would have been made to those buildings. Therefore, to insist that because it is a Muslim structure the building is an issue is wrong. QED. Think about it. Your fallacy is that you think that whether it is a Muslim structure or, indeed, any religious structure is essential to the issue. But that is false, as I have just shown by my Shriners and Elks counterexample. That it is a religious structure, and that it is a Muslim structure is not essential, it is accidental to the issue. And therefore, that is why you are committing a different fallacy, namely, the fallacy of accident which is the fallacy of thinking that a feature accidental to an argument is essential to the argument. How hard is it to understand this? As I pointed out, you can read more about the fallacy of accident in, for example, the web site, Fallacy Files. Do yourself a favor. Learn a little logic, and you will not (I hope) keep committing fallacy after fallacy. My explanation of why your are just wrong to think of this as a religious issue, and to infer from that, that if it goes to court it will have to go as a constitutional issue, and all the other attendant mistakes you make can be staunched with just a little effort on your part. Meantime, as Cromwell said to the Long Parliament, "Think it in your bowels that ye may be mistaken". And, in fact, I have just proved that you are mistaken. I have just proved that it is not a religious issue. (And the fallacy you commit in this instance is not the fallacy of the red herring. It is the fallacy of accident).

Those who try to argue, but know no logic, are like those who try to row, but who have no oars.

1 Reply

For some, it is more important to maintain they are correct than to put forward an honest, coherent argument. Their original position becomes diluted until it loses all meaning, but they are happy because they have not conceded anything.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

For some, it is more important to maintain they are correct than to put forward an honest, coherent argument. Their original position becomes diluted until it loses all meaning, but they are happy because they have not conceded anything.

The way of the world. People become invested into their original positions and are unable because unwilling to change their views even in the face of utter refutation. Look at the Holocaust deniers. The evidence is simply overwhelming, but it moves them not. There are still those who maintain that Earth is flat, and that no one ever walked on the Moon, and more relevantly to this thread, that 9/11 was actually done not my Muslim terrorists, but by the American government. Some people care nothing for facts or for logic when either or both are incompatible with what they (or their group) believes is true. They will, for example, think that the mosque issue is a religious issue despite overwhelming evidence that had non-religious groups committed the 9/11 atrocity, so would they have been attacked for trying to justify the atrocity, and for defying those who think it is the wrong thing to do. But that seems to make no difference to those who are invested in the theory that opposition is an act of religious intolerance. Some people are weird.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kenny, Do you know who the "holocaust deniers" are, and do you understanding the underlying reason why that is so?

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

But since it is not (repeat not) a religious issue, that it is a religious issue is not a reason to think it is a constitutional issue. For, as I pointed out the fact that it is a Muslim structure has nothing to do with whether it should be erected. Proof, if it were a Shriner Temple, or an Elks Lodge, and if a group of Shriners had done the 9/11 atrocity, or if a group of the Royal Order of the Elks had committed the atrocity, the very same objections would have been made to those buildings.

You say that the fact that it is a Muslim building has nothing to do with your opposition to building it. The reason you give for your opposition is that it symbolizes the dastardly actions of Muslim terroists. You don’t see the contradiction there?

This amounts to religious discrimination. It would be religious discrimination if you applied the same reasoning to the religious buildings of Scientologists or Jews or Protestants.

Again, why are you attempting to restrict the free religious practice of a faith community because some of the members of that community have committed atrocious deeds?

2 Replies

@Ahab,

Because none of the other faiths have committed atrocious deeds in this world.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

Ken, i addressed your questions to me in my last post. Are you going to respond to mine? I'm almost curious to get your take.

0 Replies

@Ahab,

Ahab wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

But since it is not (repeat not) a religious issue, that it is a religious issue is not a reason to think it is a constitutional issue. For, as I pointed out the fact that it is a Muslim structure has nothing to do with whether it should be erected. Proof, if it were a Shriner Temple, or an Elks Lodge, and if a group of Shriners had done the 9/11 atrocity, or if a group of the Royal Order of the Elks had committed the atrocity, the very same objections would have been made to those buildings.

You say that the fact that it is a Muslim building has nothing to do with your opposition to building it. The reason you give for your opposition is that it symbolizes the dastardly actions of Muslim terroists. You don’t see the contradiction there?

This amounts to religious discrimination. It would be religious discrimination if you applied the same reasoning to the religious buildings of Scientologists or Jews or Protestants.

Again, why are you attempting to restrict the free religious practice of a faith community because some of the members of that community have committed atrocious deeds?

And also The Royal Order of the Elks? Or the the Book of the Month Club too. If I were opposed to their building near to where they had wreaked their depredations, would that constitute an attack on religious freedom too? Don't you really see that it is an accident that Muslims are religious, and that it is the fact that it is Muslims who did this dastardly thing that is what matters. And that it simply is an accident that this things was done by Muslims so far as what happened is concerned? Since if it had been done by members of the Book of the Month Club it would have been the same thing? Why to you resist? What you believe is simply false.

My opposition is justified as follows: The building is no a symbol of defiance, and it is also an attempt to justify 9/11. Now, I don't know that. I think it is true, but I do not know that. But that is how it is seen by most of America. And the persistence, and the refusal to compromise makes it worse. It also confirms my own suspicion about the motives that lie behind this project.Why don't they compromise since it is not a matter of religious freedom, nor is it mainly anti-Muslim sentiment. But, I will tell you this much; it is rapidly becoming both those things. It is not only wrong not to compromise (the leader of the group said "it is not in my DNA" to compromise just as if that were a good thing and not a stupid thing.). Why created resentment and intolerance when it is possible to create good feeling all round?

3 Replies

@kennethamy,

Since you don't know it, but want to restrict other people's choices. What does that make you?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Quote:

And also The Royal Order of the Elks? Or the the Book of the Month Club too. If I were opposed to their building near to where they had wreaked their depredations, would that constitute an attack on religious freedom too?

If that was the case and you were attempting to prevent them building, it would still be discrimination against the whole for the acts of a few. It would just mean it wasn't covered under the religious clause but rather the equal protection clause.

1 Reply

@parados,

Or any organization kenneth happens to belong; they must all by his reasoning be potential terrorists.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Since you don't know it, but want to restrict other people's choices. What does that make you?

It makes me sensible, I think. I don't know for sure, but I think it is probable. And now, it is clear that is is not a matter of bigotry, or an attack on religious freedom, or religious discrimination, of any of those red herrings. Sometimes people's choices need to be restricted, as for example when they offend others. My choice to urinate in the public streets is restricted in that way. So, what choices are restricted depend on what those choices are. There is no blanket prohibition on restricting choices. And, let's remember, these are not legal restrictions. They have a perfect legal right to build (remember? that's a given). These are moral and civic restrictions. Many people, most Americans (and even some Muslims) see this as an act of defiance, and an act of justification of 9/11/ . Why not diffuse this sentiment, and prevent it from getting worse? Is there some principle involved? Not religious freedom; not the right to build; so what is it? Or is it simply defiance and sheer obstinacy?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Or any organization kenneth happens to belong; they must all by his reasoning be potential terrorists.

What are you talking about? I think that any organization I belong to are terrorists? Are you drinking, or smoking?

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

It makes me sensible, I think. I don't know for sure, but I think it is probable. And now, it is clear that is is not a matter of bigotry, or an attack on religious freedom, or religious discrimination, of any of those red herrings.

It is only obvious to you because you made up your mind and refuse to accept anything that contradicts your opinion.

Quote:

Sometimes people's choices need to be restricted, as for example when they offend others. My choice to urinate in the public streets is restricted in that way.

But that is a case of equal protection. ALL persons are restricted from urinating in public, not just a select group. Can we classify that example as a red herring?

Quote:

So, what choices are restricted depend on what those choices are. There is no blanket prohibition on restricting choices.

Actually there is a blanket prohibition on how choices can be restricted. It's called the Constitution. Restrictions can't be based on a defining factor that discriminates against a particular group.

Quote:

And, let's remember, these are not legal restrictions. They have a perfect legal right to build (remember? that's a given). These are moral and civic restrictions.

What moral restrictions? YOu have been asked this before. What morality says they can't build there?

Quote:

Many people, most Americans (and even some Muslims) see this as an act of defiance, and an act of justification of 9/11/ .

When in doubt, I guess you can just use a specious ad populum fallacy.

Quote:

Why not diffuse this sentiment, and prevent it from getting worse? Is there some principle involved? Not religious freedom; not the right to build; so what is it? Or is it simply defiance and sheer obstinacy?

Why don't we diffuse the bigotry and let them build. I would suggest that is a moral argument that works quite well to counter your "moral" argument.

0 Replies

I know this isn't about me, and I know that arguments from authority are always suspect. All that conceded, it's awfully nice that one of my heroes, Dick Cavett, expresses my own thoughts better than I do.

In his New York Times blog, Dick Cavett wrote:

All this talk about the mosque reminds me of two things I heard growing up in Nebraska.

I had a 6th grade teacher who referred to American Indians as “sneaky redskins” and our enemies in the Pacific as “dirty Japs.” This abated somewhat after I asked one day in class, “Mrs. G., do you think our parents would like to know that you teach race prejudice?” She faded three shades.

The rest of that year was difficult.

As a war kid, I also heard an uncle of mine endorse a sentiment attributed to our Admiral “Bull” Halsey: “If I met a pregnant Japanese woman, I’d kick her in the belly.”

These are not proud moments in my heritage. But now, I’m genuinely ashamed of us. How sad this whole mosque business is. It doesn’t take much, it seems, to lift the lid and let our home-grown racism and bigotry overflow. We have collectively taken a pratfall on a moral whoopee cushion.

Full article

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas, Thanks for sharing, but people need to read the full article. It completes the total picture.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

And also The Royal Order of the Elks? Or the the Book of the Month Club too. If I were opposed to their building near to where they had wreaked their depredations, would that constitute an attack on religious freedom too?

Why would it? Neither of those clubs is protected under the first amendment. Talk about a red herring.

Quote:

Don't you really see that it is an accident that Muslims are religious,

WTF? A Muslim is a believer in the religion of Islam. This Muslim group is putting up these building as part of the practice of their religion.

Quote:

and that it is the fact that it is Muslims who did this dastardly thing that is what matters. And that it simply is an accident that this things was done by Muslims so far as what happened is concerned? Since if it had been done by members of the Book of the Month Club it would have been the same thing? Why to you resist? What you believe is simply false.

Why on earth would you punish the Book of the Month Club for the crimes of people who happen to be done by its members? Especially if, as you say, the connection between those members and the Club is purely accidental, it makes no sense to see the Club as symbolizing those crimes. That is an irrational belief on your part.

Quote:

My opposition is justified as follows: The building is no a symbol of defiance, and it is also an attempt to justify 9/11.

Why would these religious building be a symbol or justification of the terrorists’ actions? You just argued that the connection is purely accidental. It should be clear to any reasonable person that this group of Mulsims is simply attempting to practice its religious beliefs. And they should not be restricted from such activity because of the atrocious behavior they had nothing to do with.

Your logic would never stand up in the courts. After all, real bigots could make exactly the same claim as you are making here in order to mask their real intent: to attack the Muslim faith.

You simply cannot escape this being an issue of religious freedom because whatever your motives or reasons you are in effect trying to curtail the normal religious practice of one specific community of faith.

Quote:

Now, I don't know that. I think it is true, but I do not know that. But that is how it is seen by most of America. And the persistence, and the refusal to compromise makes it worse.

Crompomise about what? You accuse a religious group of putting up a building that you believe symbolizes and justifies a horrendous crime that you also claim has no real connection to their faith.
You are making an irrational accusation in this case.

2 Replies

@Ahab,

Ahab, Kenneth has already gone off the deep end, and there is no way back up the hill. He's been on a slippery-slope ever since he made his first post.

0 Replies

@Ahab,

Ahab wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

And also The Royal Order of the Elks? Or the the Book of the Month Club too. If I were opposed to their building near to where they had wreaked their depredations, would that constitute an attack on religious freedom too?

Why would it? Neither of those clubs is protected under the first amendment. Talk about a red herring.

Quote:
Don't you really see that it is an accident that Muslims are religious,

WTF? A Muslim is a believer in the religion of Islam. This Muslim group is putting up these building as part of the practice of their religion.

Quote:
and that it is the fact that it is Muslims who did this dastardly thing that is what matters. And that it simply is an accident that this things was done by Muslims so far as what happened is concerned? Since if it had been done by members of the Book of the Month Club it would have been the same thing? Why to you resist? What you believe is simply false.

Why on earth would you punish the Book of the Month Club for the crimes of people who happen to be done by its members? Especially if, as you say, the connection between those members and the Club is purely accidental, it makes no sense to see the Club as symbolizing those crimes. That is an irrational belief on your part.

Quote:

My opposition is justified as follows: The building is no a symbol of defiance, and it is also an attempt to justify 9/11.

Why would these religious building be a symbol or justification of the terrorists’ actions? You just argued that the connection is purely accidental. It should be clear to any reasonable person that this group of Mulsims is simply attempting to practice its religious beliefs. And they should not be restricted from such activity because of the atrocious behavior they had nothing to do with.

Your logic would never stand up in the courts. After all, real bigots could make exactly the same claim as you are making here in order to mask their real intent: to attack the Muslim faith.

You simply cannot escape this being an issue of religious freedom because whatever your motives or reasons you are in effect trying to curtail the normal religious practice of one specific community of faith.

Quote:

Now, I don't know that. I think it is true, but I do not know that. But that is how it is seen by most of America. And the persistence, and the refusal to compromise makes it worse.

Crompomise about what? You accuse a religious group of putting up a building that you believe symbolizes and justifies a horrendous crime that you also claim has no real connection to their faith.
You are making an irrational accusation in this case.

1. You miss the point. My point is that this is not an attack on the religious freedom of Muslims (or anyone else) since if a non-religious organization had done the same thing there would have been the same kind of opposition to it. Nothing to do with the 1st Amendment, which, so far as I can tell is another red herring. However, never worry. You have not just repeated committing another fallacy, you have also committed a new one. The fallacy of ignoratio elenchi or, of missing the point (literally, ignorance of the pearl). So so far you have now you have committed: 1 the red herring fallacy; 2. the fallacy the fallacy of accident; and 3. the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi.

What charge would it be that would not, or would stand up in court? What are you talking about? And if bigots pointed out that the freedom of religion was not under attack they would still be right. What would the fact that they were bigots have to do with whether or not they were right? Absolutely nothing. Uh, uh. Fallacy 4. the genetic fallacy. The fallacy of thinking that the origination of a belief can undermine the belief. Thus Nazis (real bigots I suppose you will agree) held that Einstein's theory of relativity was wrong because it was "Jewish physics". So you argue that because the argument that since the same opposition would have occurred even if the the terrorists had belonged to a non-religious organization would be made by bigots, that the argument fails. But that is, 4. the genetic fallacy.

Finally, by compromise I mean move the site of the building some distance away (to Nome? No, just kidding! You know I am kidding, don't you?) Maybe a few blocks away. The fact is that many people would take the erection of the building as a gesture of defiance and justification of the attack, and, to be frank, I would not blame them for feeling that way. It is an inconsiderate thing to do, and to do it in the face of so much opposition goes beyond obstinacy into defiance.

3 Replies

Critical thinking and political matters.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know