25
   

Critical thinking and political matters.

 
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2010 09:51 am
@kennethamy,

Quote:
Some years ago, when a group of Catholic nuns decided to pray for the souls of the dead at the death camp at Auschwitz where the great majority of the murdered victims were Jews, and there was a protest by Jews concerning this, Pope John told the nuns that although he understood their good intentions, he wanted them to understand the sensitivity of the protesters, and he ordered them to do their praying for the dead at Auschwitz elsewhere. Maybe the president should have learned from that example.


By your analogy of the story about the Pope and the protesters, you seem to be weighing in on the side of those who hold that it is morally wrong to build the mosque there. If so, you are making an appeal to emotion.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2010 09:54 am
@cicerone imposter,
The issue of the moral aspect of building a mosque there is the appeal to emotion.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2010 09:55 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
David, it has nothing to do with 'glee' at America's humiliation and defeat.
Have I got a BRIDGE for U! u can charge tolls n everything !




Cycloptichorn wrote:
I don't even know what 'humiliation and defeat' you are talking about.
Well, I think the Moslems r a little brighter than u r; enuf for them to understand it and exult!





Cycloptichorn wrote:
9/11 was neither. A bunch of insane assholes blew up a couple of buildings,
NOT insane enuf to prevent them from succeeding.



Cycloptichorn wrote:
and we retaliated by killing hundreds of thousands in their countries
(and others that were conveniently located next door).
Yeah, like thay CARE, right ?




Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm not sure what 'defeat' you are referring to.

Cycloptichorn
The one whereby the MOslems became the arbiters
of the shape of the NY skyline, which no one is willing to undo by re-building the World Trade Center.

THAT defeat. NOW, we have another defeat, with the gloating.
How many more defeats do u want ?





David
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2010 09:56 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OSD wrote:
Quote:
NOT insane enuf to prevent them from succeeding.


Many insane succeed at what they want to accomplish. What's your point?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2010 10:00 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:

The one whereby the MOslems became the arbiters
of the shape of the NY skyline, which no one is willing to undo by re-building the World Trade Center.

THAT defeat. NOW, we have another defeat, with the gloating.
How many more defeats do u want ?


Well, we ARE rebuilding stuff there - I was just there, I saw dudes working on rebuilding last week - so I don't think you are correct on either point.

These things aren't defeats, David - there isn't a cultural war going on, where you are on the front lines. But you see it that way, because it makes you excited and you feel empowered, instead of the opposite. That doesn't make it reality, however.

Nobody is 'gloating' over anything - except in your head. Perhaps that's where you should address your attention.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2010 10:04 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
You seem to think that most people are unthinking puppets who follow blindly without knowing what they are doing. You do a disservice to many Americans. I not sure if you are American. I am not.


Given the statistics concerning the matter, what with a heavy majority of Americas being opposed to the construction of the mosque, I would say that most of these people are blindly following their emotions and letting their thinking go by the wayside.


Exempli gratia, David's posts.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2010 10:15 am
@InfraBlue,
True. David is responding entirely on emotion without regard to facts or critical thinking.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2010 11:17 am
@Intrepid,
What's funny is on another thread David said I couldn't possibly know what Muslims are saying because I don't "speak muslim".
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2010 11:24 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

What's funny is on another thread David said I couldn't possibly know what Muslims are saying because I don't "speak muslim".


This is what answers.com has to say about the Muslim language.

Muslims are followers of Islam, which is a religion. While the Quran was revealed in Arabic, Muslims can be of any race, culture, or nationality. Muslims living in Mexico are more likely to speak Spanish, whereas those living in the United Kingdoms are more likely to speak English. Etc, etc.

Do you speak English, Parodos? Wink
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2010 11:52 am
@Intrepid,
I have a friend who's a Muslim. He lives in Tanzania in eastern Africa, and I communicate with him on a regular basis.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2010 12:32 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
What's funny is on another thread David said I couldn't possibly know what Muslims are saying because I don't "speak muslim".
U changed what I said, somewhat.





David
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2010 01:19 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
How did I change it?
0 Replies
 
Jebediah
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2010 01:55 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
If the president did not want to do what was right, and point out that although the group did have the legal right to build, that, under the particular circumstances, it was wrong of them to build at that site,

That confirms my suspicions. You have decided the issue and now are attempting to attack the President because he doesn't hold your viewpoint.


You had "suspicions" that he had an opinion on the issue and was arguing against someone he disagreed with? I have have suspicions that you have decided you disagree with kenn and and arguing with him because he doesn't hold your viewpoint as well.

Quote:
That leads me to ask you again. On what basis is it immoral for them to build there?


Respect for the wishes of the families who died there is the reason I've heard given most often. Some are very against it and it seems unlikely that any of them have a strong desire for it. The site was chosen because part of the wreckage fell there iirc.

Quote:
You still haven't dealt with the Con Ed issue I raised earlier in pointing out it would violate the rights of Muslims if Con Ed refused to sell based on the fact that they were Muslims.


They can surely refuse to sell for reasons other than "you are muslims" and possibly they have the right to that anyway, I don't know what sort of business they are.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2010 02:11 pm
@Jebediah,
Quote:
You had "suspicions" that he had an opinion on the issue and was arguing against someone he disagreed with? I have have suspicions that you have decided you disagree with kenn and and arguing with him because he doesn't hold your viewpoint as well.
That doesn't even make sense compared to what I said Jeb. Kenneth stated "the president did not want to do what was right". That is assigning "right" and "wrong" to the President's position without any support why it is "right" and then attacking him for his "wrong" stance.

Kenneth's first stance was that the President's position was irrelevant. Now he is arguing that it is not right. His original argument didn't show critical thinking which is what many, not just me, have argued with Ken about.

Quote:

Respect for the wishes of the families who died there is the reason I've heard given most often. Some are very against it and it seems unlikely that any of them have a strong desire for it.

How does lack of respect make it immoral?

I could argue that opposing the building shows lack of respect for Muslims. Doesn't that make your argument immoral then?

Quote:
The site was chosen because part of the wreckage fell there iirc.

Part of the wreckage fell there? That is nonsense unless you want to restrict everywhere that dust fell in NYC. There has been a mosque on this site for a number of years. Why does it suddenly become immoral for the mosque to be there now since 'wreckage fell there" in 2001?

Quote:
They can surely refuse to sell for reasons other than "you are muslims" and possibly they have the right to that anyway, I don't know what sort of business they are.

What reason would that be, if they refuse to sell because they don't want a mosque there?
Jebediah
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2010 02:43 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
You had "suspicions" that he had an opinion on the issue and was arguing against someone he disagreed with? I have have suspicions that you have decided you disagree with kenn and and arguing with him because he doesn't hold your viewpoint as well.
That doesn't even make sense compared to what I said Jeb. Kenneth stated "the president did not want to do what was right". That is assigning "right" and "wrong" to the President's position without any support why it is "right" and then attacking him for his "wrong" stance.


Why are you putting right and wrong in quotation marks? I don't understand this bit, and don't understand like you treated kenn having a belief about whether the president was right or wrong as incriminating evidence of something.
Quote:

Quote:

Respect for the wishes of the families who died there is the reason I've heard given most often. Some are very against it and it seems unlikely that any of them have a strong desire for it.

How does lack of respect make it immoral?

I could argue that opposing the building shows lack of respect for Muslims. Doesn't that make your argument immoral then?


Respect for the dead is a common moral issue. For example, desacrating a grave is wrong, necrophilia is wrong, and making overly critical comments about someone shortly after their death is wrong. Those are all examples of respect for the dead as a moral issue.

Denying the mosque for no reason or because "all muslims are terrorists" shows a lack of respect for Muslims. Denying it out of respect for the dead and the families of the dead (which is kind of what respect for dead is about) is a reason. I think you show a lack of respect for muslims if you don't think they can easily understand respecting the dead as a reason.

Quote:
Quote:
The site was chosen because part of the wreckage fell there iirc.

Part of the wreckage fell there? That is nonsense unless you want to restrict everywhere that dust fell in NYC. There has been a mosque on this site for a number of years. Why does it suddenly become immoral for the mosque to be there now since 'wreckage fell there" in 2001?


The connection to ground zero has been trumped up, but it is existent, and the reason rauf said he wanted to build there was the connection to ground zero. And no one is objecting to their being mosques in NYC, there are many I believe.

Quote:
Quote:
They can surely refuse to sell for reasons other than "you are muslims" and possibly they have the right to that anyway, I don't know what sort of business they are.

What reason would that be, if they refuse to sell because they don't want a mosque there?


It doesn't violate any rights for them to say that they are respecting the wishes of the dead.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2010 02:48 pm
@Jebediah,
Quote:

Denying the mosque for no reason or because "all muslims are terrorists" shows a lack of respect for Muslims. Denying it out of respect for the dead and the families of the dead (which is kind of what respect for dead is about) is a reason. I think you show a lack of respect for muslims if you don't think they can easily understand respecting the dead as a reason.

---

It doesn't violate any rights for them to say that they are respecting the wishes of the dead.


It's a lie, though - because you have no idea what 'the dead' would have wished. I'm sure the hundreds of Muslims who were killed on 9/11 wouldn't have been too upset about it; or do they not count?

'Respecting the dead' is not a valid reason to oppose building a house of worship, ever.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2010 02:50 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
It goes much deeper than that; how does one know what the dead wishes?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2010 02:56 pm
@Jebediah,
Quote:
Why are you putting right and wrong in quotation marks?
Because they are kenneth's words.



Quote:
Denying the mosque for no reason or because "all muslims are terrorists" shows a lack of respect for Muslims. Denying it out of respect for the dead and the families of the dead (which is kind of what respect for dead is about) is a reason.

Why are you denying it out of respect for the dead? Because you feel all muslims are terrorists? There doesn't seem to be any other reasons that I can see. We know they aren't all terrorists. With what reason does it show respect to deny muslims a mosque? I can see none unless you are playing the "muslims are terrorists" card.

What respect are you showing? Some of the dead were muslims. Aren't you showing disrespect for those dead by denying a mosque near where they died?

Quote:

The connection to ground zero has been trumped up, but it is existent, and the reason rauf said he wanted to build there was the connection to ground zero. And no one is objecting to their being mosques in NYC, there are many I believe.
Including one at the very site the new building will be built. So, what makes the new building wrong but an existing mosque there now is OK?

Quote:
It doesn't violate any rights for them to say that they are respecting the wishes of the dead.
The wishes of the dead? That means those wishes had to be made known prior to their deaths. Where can we find those wishes? You are now making stuff up it seems Jeb. Maybe you should reflect on your argument for a moment before you make such an ass of yourself.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2010 03:32 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
In a conversation with Wittgenstein reported by Norman Malcolm in a memoir, Malcolm tells of how he made some political remark to Wittgenstein that infuriated him. Wittgenstein thought that the remark was stupid and it showed a lack of critical thought. And he asked Malcolm (rhetorically) what was the good of Malcolm knowing philosophy with all of its subtleties, but when it came to thinking about real life matters, Malcolm failed miserably?

Something to think about.
Does a wise man, does a competent logician, rise to FURY,
when he observes low intelligence and paucity of critical thought ??

If so, then he must be in continual rage whenever near lower animals,
or near the great bulk of humanity; if so, he must forever ruled by negative emotion.

If his mind is above the abhored stupidity,
then he shoud have better control of his emotions.





David

I expect great things from you
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Aug, 2010 03:35 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
The issue is a moral one, namely whether it would be the right thing for the Muslim group to erect the structure. Now, the president has great persuasive power (Theodore Roosevelt called that "the bully pulpit") and, as in fact the president did, he weighed in in the moral question: not only indirectly by diverting the issue and making it appear as if the moral issue was actually a clear constitutional issue, which misleads unthinking people to say yes to the constitutional non-issue rather than no to the real moral issue, but directly by not addressing the real moral issu

Except your "moral" issue is based on a false premise.
Why is it immoral for muslims to build 2 blocks away from the WTC site?

The only way to call it immoral is to blame all muslims for what a few did. Do you not see the fallacy in that argument?


He does not understand morality, which is ethics, and governs the behavior of people vis a vis their own groups... Do you see the similarity of ethics and ethnic... Its original meaning was custom and character, what people take from their groups when off on their own,
0 Replies
 
 

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 11:15:48