Critical thinking and political matters.

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.

Jebediah wrote:

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.

What's on my mind is that those who dropped the towers would have said they did it in the name of Allah. It does my heart good anytime monotheists object to being defined by the more flamboyantly hateful of their kind.

But you see... this is my viewpoint. I don't live in New York. It seems like some weight ought to be placed on their viewpoint. Community ordinances governing property development are pretty standard, right?

Hi Ossobucco! I mean no harm by posting on this thread. I just know Jebediah and Kennethamy. You know how it is posting to people you know.

I've found that a2kers tend to hop over my posts like I'm invisible. I'm thinking it's either because I'm boring or because they don't know me. Or both.

Would you like me to define the precise amount of leeway we give them? I mean, just imagine how you would treat someone who had lost a loved one differently in that situation. I don't know what you mean by "equally".

we have a different standard of reasonable for people who lost a loved one

The example was in case you missed my point as I said, so the objection that it is a red herring is strange. Also I don't understand the first two sentences, whose image and what people are you talking about?

Why do you think you have to ask if I agree that simple buildings are not objectionable? Buildings aren't objectionable, mosques aren't objectionable, islamic community centers aren't objectionable.

Of course it is. And it is the view point of many people in New York that the site should not be built.

Quote:

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

What does a mosque have to do with genocide?

Please explain why a mosque and community center is similar to an exhibit about genocide. There is no real comparison that I can see.

The IFC was going to be built on land owned by the Port Authority and controlled by the states of NY and NJ at the WTC site
Explain why building ON the WTC site is the same thing as building on public land 2 blocks away.

Quote:

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.

If the mosque can't heal anything then perhaps you can explain why it would hurt anything. I see no evidence it will cause problems. Perhaps you can provide some evidence other than an appeal to emotion.

Quote:

Mainly the site choice and public statements

Ok.
What is wrong with the site choice?
Be specific and factual.
So far you have compared publicly held land to private land.
You have complained about building near the site but haven't offered any complaint about building ON the site.

What public statements?
You have provided only 2 that contradict each other from survivors.

The specific location of the planned mosque, so close to the World Trade Center “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” was a primary selling point for the Muslims who bought the building.[28] Abdul Rauf said it “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.” and “We want to push back against the extremists”.[28]

El-Gamal said he wanted the building to be energy-efficient and transparent, most likely with a glass façade.[18] He said: “It’s really to provide a place of peace, a place of services and solutions for the community which is always looking for interfaith dialogue".[19] He envisions it as "a place where I could show off my hospitality, my culture, my background"

Quote:

Would you like me to define the precise amount of leeway we give them? I mean, just imagine how you would treat someone who had lost a loved one differently in that situation. I don't know what you mean by "equally".

You said you have a standard

Quote:

we have a different standard of reasonable for people who lost a loved one

So, what is that standard? Either you have one or you don't. If you don't, then why did you claim you did?

Once you tell us what the standard is then I want to know how you apply it equally in all situations.

Quote:

The example was in case you missed my point as I said, so the objection that it is a red herring is strange. Also I don't understand the first two sentences, whose image and what people are you talking about?

It's a red herring because of the example you provided which has nothing to do with this issue. Read your example. The person complained that his image was used. That is the issue in the example.

Quote:

Why do you think you have to ask if I agree that simple buildings are not objectionable? Buildings aren't objectionable, mosques aren't objectionable, islamic community centers aren't objectionable.

So then what is the objection?

The comparison then, is not about proximity, or public land, or mosque vs museum.

Disrespecting the dead is morally wrong.

It is planned as a place to show the world true islam, to show that the real islam is not extremist--to teach new yorkers that the real islam is not extremist

That is saying "yeah, yeah, your brother died here, but come listen to my message about how you shouldn't lump all muslims in with the terrorists".

Explaining the obvious is exhausting, I hope you were actually curious. This is all tangential because there is a reasonable objection that requires no leeway, however that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile.

I'm sorry for going for an example , but I'm not sure if you've had anyone die or if you know people who have lost a relative.

The loss of the 9/11 families is being exploited (less directly) by someone else to make a point. How does it "have nothing to do with the issue"?

So we all agree that exploitation of grief related to 9/11 is wrong.

Maybe we're on different wavelengths here. When people I know are having a bad day, I give them more leeway when they get tetchy, because I know I get tetchy sometimes when I've had a bad day. Do you understand that? I have a different standard for how I treat them.

Quote:

So we all agree that exploitation of grief related to 9/11 is wrong.

Of course, that would require that we all agree on what exploitation is.

I would bet that Jeb and Ken would deny they are exploiting anything but their arguments don't appear to be much more than an emotional appeal based on what happened that day.