Critical thinking and political matters.

@kennethamy,

kenneth, Please name (any) the non-religious organization that would result in the same reaction as the mosque near ground zero? If what you say is true, why hasn't it produced the same kind of reaction?

Name any non-religious organization that is crime free?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Quote:

And in America this is often settled by controversy

Controversy does not settle anything but rather it is controversy which must be resolved, either by finding a middle ground between two contested opinions or by investigating the cause of the crisis.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

kenneth, Please name (any) the non-religious organization that would result in the same reaction as the mosque near ground zero? If what you say is true, why hasn't it produced the same kind of reaction?

Name any non-religious organization that is crime free?

The Book of the Month Club; The Royal Order of the Elks; the Marshall Chess Club in Manhattan, New York. And you miss the point. The attack on 9/11 was not just a crime like embezzling, or burglary. Indeed, it was not a crime. It was a terrorist attack. I doubt whether if members of the Book of the Month Club were arrested for extortion, that there would be opposition to its putting up a new building near the site of 9/11. However if a number of members of the club had attacked and destroyed buildings, and murdered 3,000 people in aid of its charging higher membership fees, there might be. Tell me, are you really all right? What a bizarre question!

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Quote:
And in America this is often settled by controversy

Controversy does not settle anything but rather it is controversy which must be resolved, either by finding a middle ground between two contested opinions or by investigating the cause of the crisis.

But, in fact, controversy and discussion may lead to settlement, and if it does not, the parties can always resort to law. So you seem to be mistaken.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

It really doesn't matter what I am in your eyes because you compounded your error.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kenneth wrote:

Quote:

However if a number of members of the club had attacked and destroyed buildings, and murdered 3,000 people in aid of its charging higher membership fees, there might be.

That's a big "if" kenneth. "There might be" is only your guess, and lacks what I would term "reality." You can dream up all the difference scenarios of terrorism, but most American grown ones are like the KKK, white supremacists, and Tim McVeigh.

That should provide a very good clue for you, but it might be too spacial for you!

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

So, let me get this straight. Tim McVeigh was in the military.

So, does that mean the military has no recruiting offices in Oklahoma City out of respect for the relatives?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Quote:

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.

Well Ken, in court the opposite would be true. The court would give deference to any religious group. It would be up to you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this isn't religious discrimination.

You aren't doing a very good job of it. No court would accept your claim that others are using fallacies. The court would require you to have facts.
So.. let's see what you said.

This isn't about religion.
This is opposed because it is a symbol of their religion.

Hmm.. I think the court would see through your argument in no time.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

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.

I'm unclear on what you would regard as "a non-religious organization" doing "the same thing". Can you give an example?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
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.

I'm unclear on what you would regard as "a non-religious organization" doing "the same thing". Can you give an example?

Example? Murdering 3.000 people. How about that?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

So, let me get this straight. Tim McVeigh was in the military.

So, does that mean the military has no recruiting offices in Oklahoma City out of respect for the relatives?

What a bizarre analogy. McVeigh was not acting on behalf of the military.

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

It really doesn't matter what I am in your eyes because you compounded your error.

What error? And how did I compound it. People do say such peculiar things.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

parados wrote:

So, let me get this straight. Tim McVeigh was in the military.

So, does that mean the military has no recruiting offices in Oklahoma City out of respect for the relatives?

What a bizarre analogy. McVeigh was not acting on behalf of the military.

If I kill someone, and I say that I did it in your name, that in no way assigns blame to [img]you[/img] for me doing it. It shouldn't prevent you from doing anything you want. Wouldn't you agree?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Betcha dollars to donuts he misses this one. LOL

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

parados wrote:

So, let me get this straight. Tim McVeigh was in the military.

So, does that mean the military has no recruiting offices in Oklahoma City out of respect for the relatives?

What a bizarre analogy. McVeigh was not acting on behalf of the military.

If I kill someone, and I say that I did it in your name, that in no way assigns blame to [img]you[/img] for me doing it. It shouldn't prevent you from doing anything you want. Wouldn't you agree?

Cycloptichorn

Sorry. I can't figure out what you are saying.

1 Reply

cicerone imposter wrote:

Betcha dollars to donuts he misses this one. LOL

kennethamy wrote:

Sorry. I can't figure out what you are saying.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Betcha dollars to donuts he misses this one. LOL

kennethamy wrote:

Sorry. I can't figure out what you are saying.

Eh, can you figure out what he is saying? It seems to be in English, but that is about all I can tell. But if you can, do let me know.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Eh, can you figure out what he is saying? It seems to be in English, but that is about all I can tell. But if you can, do let me know.

You are probably the only one who does not know what he is saying. No surprise here since you either do not answer what you are incapable of answering or you defer to ignorance on what directly disputes your wild claims.

Ok. I am going to speak really slowly here so you might be able to understand what he is saying.

You are denouncing the Muslim people and their religion because you claim that their religion and those who practice it are responsible for the 9/11 atrocity. At the same time you deny that it is because they are Muslim.

You also claim that if those few who did the deed were Elks, Book Club Members or any other group then that would be the same thing.

Anyhow, this is what Cyclo wrote that you seem incapable of understanding.

Quote:

If I kill someone, and I say that I did it in your name, that in no way assigns blame to [img]you[/img] for me doing it. It shouldn't prevent you from doing anything you want. Wouldn't you agree?

Cycloptichorn

You claim that a few Muslim people killed 3000 people at the WTC in the name of Islam. (with me so far?)

You further claim that this, therefore, attaches the blame to all Muslim people. (still there?)

You insist that the Muslim people should not be able to build a building that will contain a place of Muslim worship since those people were killed by a few Muslim people. (do you understand that this is what you have clearly stated?)

OK. Now to what Cyclo is attempting to say to you (clear to most reasonable people).

If he (insert Muslim) killed somebody (insert people at WTC) and said it was done in your name (insert Allah).

Should that prevent you (insert Allah) from engaging in anything because you were not involved in the killing of anybody.

In other words. The Muslim people did not commit this act and should not be held accountable.

Do you understand that Kenney?

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

parados wrote:

So, let me get this straight. Tim McVeigh was in the military.

So, does that mean the military has no recruiting offices in Oklahoma City out of respect for the relatives?

What a bizarre analogy. McVeigh was not acting on behalf of the military.

How do you know he wasn't acting on behalf of the military?

If he had claimed to act on behalf of the military would it mean he actually was acting on behalf of the military?

1 Reply

@parados,

kennethamy wrote:

parados wrote:

So, let me get this straight. Tim McVeigh was in the military.

So, does that mean the military has no recruiting offices in Oklahoma City out of respect for the relatives?

What a bizarre analogy. McVeigh was not acting on behalf of the military.

parados wrote:

How do you know he wasn't acting on behalf of the military?

Losing your grip on reality ?

parados wrote:

If he had claimed to act on behalf of the military would it mean he actually was acting on behalf of the military?

That is a VERY GOOD analogy for the point of vu
that exculpates Moslems, as a whole, from the evil of 9/11/1; nice job.

David

3 Replies

Critical thinking and political matters.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know