Oftentimes, emotions are illogical. I don't deny that people will react emotionally. It doesn't make it logical in their reasoning.
Never said that emotions can't be illogical.
Okay, if the words are next to each other that would be like the mosque being across the street from ground zero. We could say that two blocks away is like the two words being in the same sentence. Ex.: Not all Muslims attacked the World Trade Center.
Yes, "Not all muslims attacked the world trade center", if told to me as I'm looking at ground zero, would still likely illicit a significantly negative response and emotion from me because you're sitting there at the site of it equivocating in an attempt to seemingly downplay or excuse what happened there. My issue with you, and more importantly many others in this thread, is that you run so far the opposite direction that you immediately give the impression that rather than "MUSLIMS = TERRORIST" that "Islam isn't related at all to 9/11" which is an attitude I find as reprehensible and disgusting as the former.
Can the words be in the same paragraph (city or burrough), same chapter (state), or book (country)?
For me personally, I've already stated where I think would've been a good outer limit going the same direction they went (To the north of ground zero) and why. I imagine that with even a relatively small amount of focus grouping they could've discovered a decent equilibrium where the amount of those within the group needing "outreach" (IE those with a neutral to bad view of Islam) were okay with it rather than upset about it.
Yes, it is a knee jerk (emotional) reaction to not like this. But no one can say how close or how soon is acceptable. Some people are more emotional than others.
No one on a random message board can say exactly. With a little bit of effort however a reasonable guess could likely have been made if their HONEST about their attempts for outreach and aren't idiots or oblivious.
Emotion ignores logic many times. That is what is happening when people ignore context. Some people read their own context into it to validate their emotions. It's not any more absurd to attach Islam to 9/11 than attaching child sex abuse and Catholicism. The absurdity comes with how it is attached and for what reasons it is being attached.
Actually it is, and this is the most ridiculous thing I continually find.
How many Catholic Priests have molested children because they believe its gods will?
How many Catholic Priests have molested children because they believed it would get them into heaven?
How many Catholic Priests have molested children because they believe its their religious duty to do so?
How many Catholic Priests have molested children because they have been lead to believe it is the holy thing to do by another religious zealot above them that suggests that's the correct course of action because of their belief in god?
You're going to complain about the Japan comparison and then throw that **** out?
And you know what, even with that in mind and accepting your generalized scenario, if somehow a catholic priest that was no longer allowed to lead a church and was bat**** insane enough to think it was gods will to molest little boys moved into a ctiy and started kidnapping and raping a dozen little boys before finding caught, I would say that it'd be a tactless douchy act to buy up the land he used for his molestation house and build a catholic church right there claiming its for "outreach".
People's emotions are triggered because of the association of Islam and 9/11. It is not logical though.
Actually, its perfectly logical to have emotions triggered because of the association of Islam and 9/11.
Muslims, on the order of another Muslim, attacked the United States in part due to their hatred for its sinful ways and its encroachment into holy lands and for its status as the infidel and great satan (all based in their belief in their religion) by flying planes into the World Trade Center, an act they readily embraced and did because of the RELIGIOUS belief through Islam that in dying a martyr they would go on to an afterlife of paradise.
Islam was a key factor in 9/11. There is no if and's or but's about it. You can equivocate it all you want. You can excuse it all you want. You can wave your hands and act like its not there all you want. You can throw "Extremists" or "radical" or "Fringe" all you want. The fact, pure, bloody, simple, indisputable fact is ISLAM was DIRECTLY tied to 9/11 and the reason 3,000 people died.
Your, and others, disgusting continual attempt to obfuscate that fact and belittle that fact and ignore that fact all in an effort to be political correct or god forbid agree in some way shape or form with the crazies from the other side is as disgusting, distasteful, and pathetic as those crazies on the other side that think "OMG ISLAM = TERRORIST."
Now if you said "its an illogical for negative emotions to trigger when someone hears the word Islam" then I'd have less of an issue, but its your bull**** attempt at suggesting its illogical to link ISLAM and 9/11, TOGETHER, to having a negative emotional response.
A is a terrorist
A is Muslim
Muslims are terrorists.
No.
A is terrorist
A is muslim
A flew into the World Trade Center
MUSLIM terrorists flew into the World Trade Center
You kindly just ignored the second part of the equation I kept stating, which was the location along with "muslim" and "terrorism"
Logic tells us that this is not true though. You acknowledge this. We both know that it was radical Islam that is to be blamed for 9/11. If this community center/mosque is linked to the radical Islam that attacked us, reality would validate those emotions as correct. Otherwise, it's a rash generalization or stereotype that is incorrectly applied.
Well yeah, because you left out half of the equation because it didn't suit your little scenario. Logic tells us its perfectly true to equate Islam to terrorism when thinking about the World Trade Center as it is an example of an ISLAMIC terrorist attack. Its illogical to equate Islam to Terrorism in a generalized sense.
We were at war with Japan. We are not at war with Islam.
Correct, we are at war with Terrorism, most specifically at this point ISLAMIC terrorism.
Also, we still are CURRENTLY at war with Terrorists...10 years after Pearl Harbor we were NOT at war with Japan.
Islam is not a democracy either. Nobody voted for the terrorists. The terrorists didn't force to whole Muslim community to go to war with us.
And yet the majority of the Muslim world agree's with the Terrorists purposes, goals, and efforts if not their methods.
These religious wackos used Islam to achieve their own ends, this doesn't mean that Islam is to blame.
It also doesn't mean it should be completely ignored and erased from the equation as if the GIGANTIC relationship with regards to it just didn't exist.
but I think it's incorrect as they have stated good intentions and I think the best people could do is encourage them to donate to a 9/11 victims, firefighter/police, or veterans charity as an act showing those good intentions.
Which as I said, I firmly believe are either absolute BULL**** or they are the either the stupidest or most obtuse people in the world.
If you want to do outreach to battered women your first act is not wearing a "Wanna ****" T-shirt.
If you want to do outreach to alcoholics you do not walk around smelling of beer and holding a Jack Daniels bottle.
If you want to do outreach to the poor you don't begin by charging a $10 entry fee to your food shelter.
If the U.S. wanted to "build bridges" back to the Japanese after WWII by offering employment opportunities to them you wouldn't advertise it going "Calling our Japs! Come to our Job Fair Saturday. You won't believe your slanty eyes at the opportunities you'll see!"
If Christians want to "build bridges" to the Gay Community they wouldn't host a meet and greet at a Anti-Gay Marriage rally.
and on and on.
When the very location that your "outreach" is going to occur makes neutral feeling people annoyed, moderately uneasy feeling people upset, and your negative feeling people angry it immediately calls into question either your honesty in wanting "outreach" or your intelligence in your chosen location or how you went about choosing it. When the only people who have a majority of individuals that don't care that you're building it where it is are ones who already have a slightly positive to completely positive view of Islam to begin with then you're doing something wrong, because you don't "Build Bridges" or "Reach Out" to people who are already with you.
LOL, was going to be dishonest but I realized dishonest rolled in with douche bag
Black people knew it would piss off white people when they were the first ones to breach a homogeneous neighborhood. People learned that it wasn't a bad thing generally. I see this as an innocent person/group who will not be bullied by people who are acting emotionally. If it turns out they are not innocent, then all bets are off.
Except Black People didn't attempt to breach a homogenous neighborhood stating its intent was for "Out Reach" or to "Mend Fences". They also didn't make a giant scene about the effort by trying to move into the most white bread neighborhood in say Birmingham Alabama either.
I think this could work out to our benefit. We could throw this in the face of Islamic countries that are not religiously tolerant. We truly are the home of the free.
I think the opposite. If their cause is REALLY about outreach they're hurting their cause. I have no seen a single solitary individual that had a moderately negative to negative view of Islam here or elsewhere that has thought "This is a really good idea" or "I want to go there" or "I'll give it a shot". Indeed, I've seen people with relatively neutral views of Islam as a whole going "This actually annoys me" or "I disagree with this" or "Their attitude in doing it there assures I'll never go". The ONLY people I've seen that like this are people with a relatively moderately positive to positive view of Islam, in which case...WHAT ****ING GOOD IS THAT DOING? What "outreach" is it doing to make those that already like you, like you? To me this does nothing but creates a net negative, pissing more people off that were on the fence rather than bringing them in.
As I said on another thread. If they would've done this in Time Square, or a metro stop or so away, or pretty much ANYWHERE else in New York that was at least close to a touresty location I'd probably be apt to stop in there, see what they had, and listen to their purpose a bit and if I liked it spread the words to others I knew visiting New York. However with their douchebaggery in regards to the location I will never, at all, think of even stepping foot in the place. This is one relatively neutral person that their tactless asses has completely turned off and have assured that rather than "building bridges" they burnt what little they possibly could've used to have me walk over. And I have no doubt I'm far from alone.
As I've said, they either known damn well its going to piss people off and are doing it anyways in which case they are completely without tact....or their oblivious to this in which case I'm not rewarding their stupidity...or they've flat out lied to people regarding this outreach bull**** (the option I actually think is true) in which case I'm definitely not rewarding dishonesty by visiting or supporting it.
