Critical thinking and political matters.

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.

David, it has nothing to do with 'glee' at America's humiliation and defeat.

I don't even know what 'humiliation and defeat' you are talking about.

9/11 was neither. A bunch of insane assholes blew up a couple of buildings,

and we retaliated by killing hundreds of thousands in their countries
(and others that were conveniently located next door).

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

Cycloptichorn

NOT insane enuf to prevent them from succeeding.

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 ?

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Why are you putting right and wrong in quotation marks?

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.

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.

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

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

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?