Critical thinking and political matters.

You start with a wrong premise, then expand that into virtual imagination.

Where did you dig up the idea about Mormons flying airplanes into any building to kill people?

My father in-laws Canadian regiment was erroneously bombed by American bomers in WWII. Many were killed and injured. The American planes then moved over and wiped out a division of Polish soldiers. My father in-law's Company were fighting the SS when the SS put out white flags. As his Company moved in, the Germans started firing at them and killed some of the men. May father in-laws cousin was in the Battle of Hong Kong with the Royal Rifles of Canada and was tortured and died in a Japanese POW camp.

Should my father in-law hate Americans, Germans and Japanese? He does not. But under what I am reading here he has every right to. He chooses not to. You see, it was only those individuals involved that did these things. Not the American, German or Japanese people. It was the individuals. He does not blame whole nations for a few.

Sure, you can say that was wartime. But, does that matter? A few attacked the WTC in New York City. All Muslims, it seems, now must pay for it.

People quite often think with their emotions instead of with their heads. Humans are, indeed, a funny bunch.

If you wish to talk about "terrorism in and out of the US," let's do so. Many white Americans are guilty of terrorist activities in the US and as representative of our government in illegal wars in many countries that have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Many in the Middle East look at our country as their worst terrorists. Who can blame them? We dropped tons of napalm and fire bombs that killed many innocent family members who were never connected with terrorist activities.

Are we on the same page now?

Jebediah wrote:

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

OK? So why don't you lay out the comparison in simple terms? Only telling us about the IFC doesn't create a comparison at all. You have to tell us WHY it is similar to the mosque.

But, it is not about 9/11, and their desire to build it there ...was exploitative. "Here's this big tragedy, let me latch on to it".

...

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. But, just like the genocide museum, it is not suitable to connect that to 9/11 .

OK. Then you have to tell us WHY building the mosque disrespects the dead.

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".
...
The loss of the 9/11 families is being exploited (less directly) by someone else to make a point.

Jebediah wrote:

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

OK.. so you object to this? Why?

But, just like the genocide museum, it is not suitable to connect that to 9/11 .

Who says it? How do they say it? Who is hearing that message? Why are they hearing it? No one is forced to go to the building. It isn't on the way to the WTC site from the most common ways to get there. Who would even know the mosque was there if you weren't making up this message and promoting it?

all that was required was a different sight (heck, the one next door might have done) and making no comments about it relating to 9/11.

Going for the sympathy vote there Jeb? We all know people that have died. It doesn't mean I stop being able to think. Yes, emotions are raw but there comes a point when people have to get over it and move on with their lives or they will have no life.

Yes, it is being exploited by those that don't want the mosque. This cuts both ways Jeb. You can't accuse one side of exploitation when the other side is much more egregious in it's exploitation.

I would have to say it is you that is trying to exploit those lost by giving them some mythical status that we all have to give in to or we are disrespecting the dead. It's nothing but BS Jeb. Either you set a standard or you don't. If you don't then you are not using critical thinking, you are just pushing emotional buttons and exploiting 9/11 to try to win a point.

If I knew, I would tell you, Jebediah. The ones I consider trolls are on ignore. He isn't. Still, if you take a position in favor of firearm ownership, he will try to apply the same position to nuclear weapons and demand you explain the difference in principle. It's up to you to decide whether or not you are going to take the bait.

No, you are not being trolled. You are just not providing enough of an arguement other than an emotional one pertaining to relatives of those killed on September 11, 2001.

You think there is a hidden agenda. He does not. At least that is how I am reading it.

InfraBlue wrote:

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.

Why, for heaven's sake is the reason that something is wrong an appeal to emotion? If I tell you that it would be wrong for you to rape a little child would you reply, "That is just an appeal to emotion"?

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

RealEyes wrote:

Very interesting read! Thanks for the contribution.

Thank you. People like to say that logic is useless or too distanced from "real life" but that isn't true. Of course, logicians can refuse to address any issues other than theoretical ones. But that is up to them and has nothing to do with logic. The great theoretical mathematician, G.H. Hardy once proposed a toast which went, "To mathematics: may it never be of use to anyone". But first of all, that was mathematics, and second of all, he may have been posturing just a little.

You are an idiot, but no one can call you an illogical idiot... You must remember that ever line of reasoning has its premises, which is where most logic fails... Look at conservative and liberal opinion writers and you see their logic is correct given the presumptions they dump on the table... It is all examples of gigo, and gigo is what you are good at... If you really looked at the meaning of your words, you would never have said what you said in regard to rights.... If a thing is right it is just because rights have the support of law, and as Abalard, a logician said: Jus, Ius, is the Genus, and Law, Lex, is a species of it.... What is politically acceptible in a land deeply divided, where the people are taught to believe that the majority can abridge or deny rights, is not the same as what is right, which is what should be a right...

The enumerated rights of the constitution are behind our division when unity is a stated goal of the constitution; so IT fails... Then party rights, which are not in any sense clearly stated, divide the people and make all issues national when they are not... And because a frustrated people denied the essential ability to control events in their lives, and to protect themselves from injustice are left with the paltry ability to deny their fellows their rights based upon political considerations... -When this is the downfall of all because no government which denies basic needs and powers, as rights are, will ever have the support of the population... Those who would deny rights are not more happy with government than those who have their rights denied.... The government cannot move better when doing good than in doing harm, and individuals within government see the harm done to people when rights are denied, so they act outside the constitution; and it all means that even those sworn to defend the constitution act outside of it and have no faith in it because the form is rotten, and needs to be replaced...

Do you see what I am saying: People acting under the premise that religious freedom is good are led in that view of good to deny all manor of rights which people need because they think they need them, including the right to free assembly and religion which is their foundation....The church leaders want power, and in their desire for power they take a right which is a power, and us it to destroy the whole country... That right of religous freedom should be limited to protection from the government, as all rights are, and the government which should be the people should be able recognize right by support of law, -but never deny any right unless it can be shown to injure the people... Government should not attack the people to defend itself, but should exist to defend people and defend rights, and when a right of one group is shown to injure the whole it should be denied... A people without rights have no freedom, and it is not for the religious who have denied to themselves the faculty of reason in favor of faith to guide this nation into oblivion... Their right is their liberty and their liberty in not the right to a general attack on liberty... They need limits... And they should be taught that what is good for the goose is good for the gander... We all need rights because they are right.

If someone were found guilty of murder and sentenced to death, then the State would have the right to execute that person. Suppose, however, that the person was, in fact innocent of the crime. Would it be right for the State to execute him?

kennethamy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

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.

Why, for heaven's sake is the reason that something is wrong an appeal to emotion? If I tell you that it would be wrong for you to rape a little child would you reply, "That is just an appeal to emotion"?

My daughter failed her first course ever on argumentative writing, and one of the things she was gigged for was an appeal to emotion, and that from a liberal professor.... The point he did not get is that nearly all political arguments are made from emotions because that is what sways great numbers, and it is upon slight majorities that great power is enjoyed... Morally, the Muslims in this land, if their citizenship means something, should not give offense; and morally, if people take freedom of religion seriously they should not take offense where ever a mosque is built, since it is legal, it should also be just, and all should desire and embrace justice... If they do not like the law of their land they should change it to exclude Muslims, if they think they can find enough stupid people to support them

The problem is that church people want no part of justice or religious freedom... As a matter of course they feel about the law that they alone deserve protection and are surrounded by sin and sinners, and they also feel like they are above the law when the law does not do as they desire... There is no part of religious freedom I support for anyone except the right to do as they please so long as it injures no person... No tax advantage, no right to make sweeping political statements or organize for political purposes should be allowed... The Christians in this country are no better than, and no different from the Muslims... Scratch a true believe and you find a terrorist...They have their higher justification and that is all they need....

Why, for heaven's sake is the reason that something is wrong an appeal to emotion? If I tell you that it would be wrong for you to rape a little child would you reply, "That is just an appeal to emotion"?

Cycloptichorn 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, then he should, at least, have not done what was wrong, and actually mislead some into thinking that the issue was really a constitutional one, and actually encouraged the building. In other words, if it was wrong for him to say what he did say, he should have, at least kept quiet about it. But few, if any, politicians take the opportunity to shut up. And, anyway, I am not sure that Obama took the time to think things through, or was even capable of doing so.

Obama was right to say what he did; there is no moral, ethical or constitutional problem in the mosque being built.

I don't think you've actually put any real critical thinking into this issue, funnily enough.

Cycloptichorn

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.

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

RealEyes wrote:

Very interesting read! Thanks for the contribution.

Thank you. People like to say that logic is useless or too distanced from "real life" but that isn't true. Of course, logicians can refuse to address any issues other than theoretical ones. But that is up to them and has nothing to do with logic. The great theoretical mathematician, G.H. Hardy once proposed a toast which went, "To mathematics: may it never be of use to anyone". But first of all, that was mathematics, and second of all, he may have been posturing just a little.

You are an idiot, but no one can call you an illogical idiot... You must remember that ever line of reasoning has its premises, which is where most logic fails... Look at conservative and liberal opinion writers and you see their logic is correct given the presumptions they dump on the table... It is all examples of gigo, and gigo is what you are good at... If you really looked at the meaning of your words, you would never have said what you said in regard to rights.... If a thing is right it is just because rights have the support of law, and as Abalard, a logician said: Jus, Ius, is the Genus, and Law, Lex, is a species of it.... What is politically acceptible in a land deeply divided, where the people are taught to believe that the majority can abridge or deny rights, is not the same as what is right, which is what should be a right...

The enumerated rights of the constitution are behind our division when unity is a stated goal of the constitution; so IT fails... Then party rights, which are not in any sense clearly stated, divide the people and make all issues national when they are not... And because a frustrated people denied the essential ability to control events in their lives, and to protect themselves from injustice are left with the paltry ability to deny their fellows their rights based upon political considerations... -When this is the downfall of all because no government which denies basic needs and powers, as rights are, will ever have the support of the population... Those who would deny rights are not more happy with government than those who have their rights denied.... The government cannot move better when doing good than in doing harm, and individuals within government see the harm done to people when rights are denied, so they act outside the constitution; and it all means that even those sworn to defend the constitution act outside of it and have no faith in it because the form is rotten, and needs to be replaced...

Do you see what I am saying: People acting under the premise that religious freedom is good are led in that view of good to deny all manor of rights which people need because they think they need them, including the right to free assembly and religion which is their foundation....The church leaders want power, and in their desire for power they take a right which is a power, and us it to destroy the whole country... That right of religous freedom should be limited to protection from the government, as all rights are, and the government which should be the people should be able recognize right by support of law, -but never deny any right unless it can be shown to injure the people... Government should not attack the people to defend itself, but should exist to defend people and defend rights, and when a right of one group is shown to injure the whole it should be denied... A people without rights have no freedom, and it is not for the religious who have denied to themselves the faculty of reason in favor of faith to guide this nation into oblivion... Their right is their liberty and their liberty in not the right to a general attack on liberty... They need limits... And they should be taught that what is good for the goose is good for the gander... We all need rights because they are right.

If someone were found guilty of murder and sentenced to death, then the State would have the right to execute that person. Suppose, however, that the person was, in fact innocent of the crime. Would it be right for the State to execute him?

Consider what the state is and has always been... Every state is a an organizaton of class division, and as such there are worse states and better states but no just states.... It is not states that have rights, but people who in a better state have rights against the power of the state, and this often amount to protection from theivery and outright exploitation...

If we were a true democracy and sought the limits of consensus, then one could say that what the people do together is always just because together they would be like an individual, and incapable of injustice to himself... The people are the law, and they determine what is right and just... But in our country it is effective minorities that decide issues for all based upon prejudice, biggotry and ignorance; all managed by emotional arguments designed to jangle ones nerves, and elicit an unthoughtful response... You see now how Mr. Obama has backed away from offering a legal judgement, and instead bows before political reality... He cannot dare to tell the truth to a people raised in lies... One cannot be a true leader without educating ones supporters, but ignorance justifies the power of the state... In this land we have never been allowed democracy because we were uneducatated, and without political power we could safely be denied education... It was the first catch 22...

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?

Intrepid wrote:

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?

He has beer goggle for fair arguments... He simply refuses to see anyones point...

What a load of crap. That is the only reply deserved.

How is that for an emotional response?