Critical thinking and political matters.

parados wrote:

You mean it wasn't caused by emotion?

If I decide to take a walk to "stretch my legs" is that caused by emotion? That phrase is ordinarily used for an action like being in tears because of the death of someone you care about. Why would you think that we should also use that phrase to apply to something like deciding to take a walk to stretch my legs?

The point is that a mosque ought not to be erected at the site because it (1) tends to symbolize defiance, and (2) justification of the attacks. And (3) offend and hurt people who were harmed by the attack.

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

Quote:

The point is that a mosque ought not to be erected at the site because it (1) tends to symbolize defiance, and (2) justification of the attacks. And (3) offend and hurt people who were harmed by the attack.

Erection of the mosque would symbolize defiance and justification of the attacks only to those people who conflate the erection of the mosque with the attacks. Those people are committing an association fallacy, which is a type of red herring, and which has at its base an appeal to emotion.

The people harmed by the attacks who would be offended and hurt by the erection of the mosque fall under the description above.

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

Has this argument altered your stance on the mosque issue?

What is the "association fallacy"? Suppose you attempt to kill me, but I escape. I see you later, and I run away

Have I committed the association fallacy? If I associate the Nazi Swastika with aggression and anti-semitism have I committed the association fallacy?

When is it a fallacy to associate two things and when is it not? Or have you any idea?

The irony is that, despite this, I don't think a mosque should be built near ground zero either. This is because I know people aren't as understanding as me, and quite a few Muslims would wind up dead. The mosque would probably be burned to the ground within two weeks - with the Muslims inside. At the least, someone would crash a personal airplane into it.

The irony is that, despite this, I don't think a mosque should be built near ground zero either. This is because I know people aren't as understanding as me, and quite a few Muslims would wind up dead. The mosque would probably be burned to the ground within two weeks - with the Muslims inside. At the least, someone would crash a personal airplane into it.

Quote:

What is the "association fallacy"? Suppose you attempt to kill me, but I escape. I see you later, and I run away

Here you are running from the specific person that did the act. In the case of the mosque you are not doing that.

Quote:

Have I committed the association fallacy? If I associate the Nazi Swastika with aggression and anti-semitism have I committed the association fallacy?

Here you are using the symbol used and presented by a group that practiced antisemitism as the basis for your association. However, the symbol was also used by Hindus. If you were to accuse Hindus of being antisemitic based solely on their use of the Swastika then you would be making an association fallacy.
http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/symbols/swastika.htm

Quote:

When is it a fallacy to associate two things and when is it not? Or have you any idea?

There are a couple of questions to ask yourself.
1. Is the particular item specific only to those you are blaming? In the first case, being the same person would allow you to do that. In the case of symbol that looks like a swastika, then the answer would be no.

2. You then ask if the use of the symbol is being used specifically to cause the response you feel. In the case of a neonazi marching with a German swastika, the answer would clearly be yes. He would even tell you as much. In the case of Hindu use, it would be different.


Now that leads us to your claim that the mosque is a symbol of radical Islam. That leads to some serious flaws in your argument.
1. Al Qaeda organized the WTC attacks.
2. Al Qaeda are muslims.
3. Not all muslims are Al Qaeda.
4. Al Qaeda don't frequent mosques in NYC.
5. Al Qaeda have built no mosques that you can point to where they commemorated a victory.

Now that leads us to your claim that the mosque is a symbol of radical Islam.


You associate Al Qaeda with all muslims which is the most glaring of your logical failings.

Could you mention when I made that claim? Somehow I don't recall making that claim. My claim is that since radical Islamists murdered 3,000 people for their own loony reasons, it would be idiotic to erect a mosque near the site of the murder which would be reasonably taken as a sign of triumph and of defiance.

People do make associations after a traumatic event like 9/11. It is inevitable that they should do so. You do not think they should, and you call it a "fallacy" .

The insistence on doing so even over the opposition of so many Americans makes the builders loony too. Or, in the words of the our president, of questionable wisdom.

People do make associations after a traumatic event like 9/11. It is inevitable that they should do so. You do not think they should, and you call it a "fallacy" .

My claim is that since radical Islamists murdered 3,000 people for their own loony reasons, it would be idiotic to erect a mosque near the site of the murder which would be reasonably taken as a sign of triumph and of defiance.

When is it a fallacy to associate two things and when is it not?

He was never claiming that all Muslims are hateful bigots.

To everyone: I think we have misunderstood kennethamy. He was never claiming that all Muslims are hateful bigots. I think what he was claiming was that, the inevitable association between Muslims and deviance/hateful radicalism, even if fallacious, is a good reason for why the mosque should not be built in that area. That is why it would be unwise. And if that is what he was claiming, I completely agree.