Critical thinking and political matters.

You keep asking what everything has to do with anything when you get an answer to your question. Are you understanding what is written, or do you refuse to acknowledge anything that does not mold into your way of thinking?

Or that we don't care about people exploiting national tragedies, by latching their cause onto them? Rauf is being accused of not respecting the families by the way.

This discussion has another leg, useful to read for all the back and forth talk: http://able2know.org/topic/159601-1

Perhaps all you critical thinkers want to skip this thread, but, that would be dumb.

Yea, you're right. But to what extent are those opposed to the mosque also latching on?

4) To go epicurean on it: it eases my mind to imagine that whatever the intentions of the builders, a mosque would be a kind of balm on a wound in the long run. What does your inner Epicurus say?

5) I'm glad it's not up to me.

I chose that because I figured it was an example you would agree with. The site's connection to ground zero has been trumped up but it is existent, it was chosen for it's connection:

But it is a straw-man to suppose that Con Ed would not sell because they were Muslims. Wherever did you get that idea? Con Ed would not sell because to build such a building would be the the wrong thing to do in such circumstances. Not because the builders were Muslims.

Quote:

But it is a straw-man to suppose that Con Ed would not sell because they were Muslims. Wherever did you get that idea? Con Ed would not sell because to build such a building would be the the wrong thing to do in such circumstances. Not because the builders were Muslims.

But it's the same thing under the law. The mosque is a religious building. Not selling because you don't want that particular kind of building is not selling because they are Muslim. No court would look at it any other way.

The court would ask these questions -
What kind of building do they want to build?
Is the sale stopped simply because they oppose that kind of building?
If yes, then it is discrimination based on the type of building which is a Muslim mosque. That is prima facia evidence that the sale was stopped because of religious discrimination. There is no defense based on the simple facts.

This is where you went wrong...we have a different standard of reasonable for people who lost a loved one, for obvious reasons

all that was required was a different sight (heck, the one next door might have done)

Do you, like cyclo, not think a garbage dump on the site would be wrong?

I remember Michael Moore got in some hot water for including a clip of an amputated soldier in his anti-war documentery, the soldier in question was quite upset that his loss was being exploited to support moore's argument--when the soldier in question disagreed with it quite strongly.

The objection to the cordoba house is similar, but has differences, the example is included because I'm not sure you know what I'm talking about.

An appeal to the emotions of the families of the dead is quite relevant.

In any case, my attitude toward the President is irrelevant to whether what I argued is correct.

Quote:

This is where you went wrong...we have a different standard of reasonable for people who lost a loved one, for obvious reasons

OK.. so what is that standard? How is it applied equally?

Quote:

all that was required was a different sight (heck, the one next door might have done)

You are aware that the site is 2 blocks from the WTC, aren't you?

Quote:

Do you, like cyclo, not think a garbage dump on the site would be wrong?

Strawman since the mosque is NOT on the WTC site. Strawman since a garbage dump would not pass code anywhere in Manhattan.

Quote:

I remember Michael Moore got in some hot water for including a clip of an amputated soldier in his anti-war documentery, the soldier in question was quite upset that his loss was being exploited to support moore's argument--when the soldier in question disagreed with it quite strongly.

The objection to the cordoba house is similar, but has differences, the example is included because I'm not sure you know what I'm talking about.

And whose image is being used without permission in the case of Cordoba house. People have a right to their image and when it is used to promote something they disagree with they have a legal recourse. Your example is nothing but a red herring.



Building buildings in the area is NOT an affront to those that died. We know that because they are currently constructing a building on the WTC grounds. That shows it is not an issue of building in the area, do you agree? This has nothing to do with the site being a grave yard. We don't build buildings on grave yards, do we?

Quote:

An appeal to the emotions of the families of the dead is quite relevant.

No, it's a logical fallacy.

But there is no constitutional problem. There is a moral problem. And, in his subsequent remarks the very next day, the President admitted that there was a question as to whether it was "wise" to build the structure. (But he admitted it only after he was forced to do so by all the controversy stirred up by his suggestion that it was only a constitutional issue). Of course, that was his own fault since he should have known it was not only a constitutional issue, but also a moral issue as well as a public relations issue. Somewhere brains are lacking.

But he admitted it only after he was forced to do so by all the controversy stirred up by his suggestion that it was only a constitutional issue

Critical thinking means you should make reasoned arguments Jeb and I am not seeing that from you.

This building seems similar in some ways, though less blatant.

I'm not sure how it would be a balm. The extreme forms of islam having nothing whatsoever to do with the site. It wasn't islam that brought down the towers, so a mosque can't heal anything.

Mainly the site choice and public statements

I'm not sure how it would be a balm. The extreme forms of islam having nothing whatsoever to do with the site. It wasn't islam that brought down the towers, so a mosque can't heal anything.

It is not the same thing either under the law or under anything else. There is all the difference in the world between disallowing the project to go forward because it is a project by Muslims (or Jews, etc.) which would be criminal, and not allowing it because it it did it would cause a great deal of resentment and disturb the public peace.

The distinction is obvious once it is made. There would be absolutely not evidence at all that the sale was stopped because of discrimination,

The court might (I doubt it would) decide that the given reason was specious and not the real reason.

Of course just building on that site is not an affront. It is building that building that is an affront.