Page 51 of 59 FirstFirst ... 414950515253 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 587

Thread: Ground Zero Mosque On The Move?

  1. #501
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Tucker Case;1059007821]I'm not confused anymore. It's clear that you are arbitrarily removing his civilian status so that you can justify an act of terrorism as being correct
    .

    All terrorists are "civilians". Do you think they follow the Geneva conventions?


    His rhetoric doesn't remove his civilian status.
    I wasn't discussing his "civilian" status. Osamma bin laden is a "civilian".

    I was confused because I assumed your argument was fallacy free until such a point as it became clear that it was based on logical fallacies. Now that the falalcies are clearly present, the confusion no longer exists.
    oh, okay.
    How could they possibly determine that? It's clear that you feel that terrorism is justified when it's against civilians who espouse rhetoric you disagree with.
    It's not just "rhetoric I disagree with". He is advocating and supporting the idea of 'one brave man' who should murder 300,000 Americans. Do you agree with this "rhetoric"? This has to stop.

    You do this by dishonestly moving the goalposts on what makes a civilian to mean "innocent", which is another arbitrarily decided term on your part.
    Whatever
    The only reason a perosn would be confused would be if they start from the presumption that your argumetns are based on sound logic instead fo fallacy.
    Perhaps you should point out this "fallacy".

    Once they relinquish this incorrect presumption based on the fact that it is evident that your argumetns are based on fallacious reasoning, the confusion is alleviated.
    Sure.

  2. #502
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Like Iran maybe? Also I get the feeling that you don't think things like this are already, and have long been used? How about the people of Iran? Is Obama supporting a strategy anything close to what you describe here? Or is he hanging them out to be dried, while he pursues a stupid 'make nice' agenda while being played by Amadinjihad?
    If the approach I'm hoping for is being use din Iran, we would not and should not be aware of it. It would involve empowering the people of Iran, but would, by necessity, be covertly ran.

    As to the bolded part, then let me ask you, how in the world can you so strongly attack another member poster with vitriol as you did above, how does that make your point assuming you actually had one, other than we should treat them nice?
    What are you talking about? There is no vitriol in my posts. Only observations about the arguments that have been presented.

    As far as the bolded part goes, the plans I would support and try to enact would require security in order to protect the operatives. If they currently exist, my not knowing that they do is a benefit to those tactics, not a detriment. I won't pretend to have knowledge of their actual existence, but I do assume that an intelligent counter-terrorism approach would have covert operatives in a "boots on the ground" situation, so to speak.


    As for so called "Moderate communities" who determines that? The State dept? I don't know if I would trust that completely. And these "Moderate communities", Where are they? Red House Va.? York SC? Dearborn MI? Recent studies place as many as 1 in 5 Mosques in the US as radical, and for sure 1 in 10. how much will you gamble with our lives?
    Before I answer this, I would like to clarify that I'm talking about sociological communities, not necesarily geographic communities. So the "location" wouldn't be as important as identifying the people who are within the community. I would think that the same methods use dto determine radical communities would also identify the moderate communites.


    I can agree with this to a point, however, we must carry out actions against the most able to project their violence while at the same time convincing these governments not to support them, and the populations to denounce their tactics from within. We can't do that with the current calls of isolationism, and a President that is not committed to win.
    I agree. When it comes down to the one's who are showing a willingness to engage in the violence instead of simply acting as mouthpeices promoting said violence, a violent intervention may be required. When they show no willingness to engage in the violence themselves and act as mouthpeices, I do not suppor the use of violence as it will be counter-productive.



    And when they reject your arguments based on the fact that in their eyes you are an infidel? We do not 'hate' Muslims, we have shed much blood in their defense, and freedom.
    The fact that my arguments would be rejected is why there is a need for "boots on tehground" acting as the medium for the argumetns. And I agree that we do nto hate muslims. and have shed much blood in defense of them and their freedom. My approach would be to have that message sspread by those who would not be viewed as infidels.

    From what you said in the previous paragraph, you agree with that strategy. Your statemnt here: "...while at the same time convincing these governments not to support them, and the populations to denounce their tactics from within." is precisely what I feel is th ebest approach, but it is a long-term tactic that must be adhered to continuously.

    Calling the American public stupid is no way to further anything other than a show of how guilty you feel for being American in the first place, and a severe lack of understanding of Taqyaia. (sic)
    I'm not guilty about being an American at all. I'm very lucky that my parents chose to come here. I do, however, believe that many of us become riled up by emotional argumetn and that we've become a sound-bite society that can't look to long-term solutions. Bush had to deal with that as much as anyone, in fact. Prior to the surge, I disagreed with his tactics in Iraq but I always viewed the "pull out of Iraq altogether" approach as one of the most short-sighted views that could be promoted. The surge was a far, far better response to the mistakes made early on with the insurgency and it actually took into consideration the long-term ramifications of abandoning the effort. If there was any chance for Iraq to have been a long-term success, teh mission could not be abandoned once it had begun.

    IMO, the abandonment would have been the ultimate error in the war on terror. Whether or not one agred with the intiial decision to invade, the truth is that once that decision was made it had to be followed through to it's conclusion. And it's not over yet, even though the "combat missions" have ended. There's still a ****load of work ahead of us in Iraq and I support continuing to work there as long as it will take.

    I also agree that a commitment to winning is of absolute importance. I'm not saying that we should take an isolationist stance (although an argument can be made that we should take a little bit less of an interventionist role than what we currently have had over the past 50+ years in many respects, I don't think we should do so after we've let the interventionsit cat out of the bag, so to speak. In other words, we need to follow through on th einterventios that we have already begun. It would be taking a less actively interventionist role in the future that I might support in certain cases)



    To realize that Islam has been at war with any that do not believe the same as they do, since their inception is naive. To think that terrorists can be coddled, or negotiated with in some pre 9/11 mindset is also equally naive.
    I'm not talking about the terrorists being coddled or negotiated with. I'm talking about taking actions designed as preventatives for recruitment.

    You should in the future think through before you just attack someone for not believing the same things that you believe. Your approach at present is an invite to get American's killed.
    I have not attacked anyone. I simply pointed out fallacies inherent within argumetns.

    For example, "Your approach at present is an invite to get American's killed." is both a strawman and hyperbole. It's a strawman because it presumes things about my approach that are nto true and it's hyperblole because, even if it was the argumetn you seem to think it is, it would not be an invite to get Americans killed.

    Pointing out the fallacies in arguements is not an attack.

    j-mac[/QUOTE]
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #503
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Pointing out the fallacies in arguements is not an attack.
    So by using terms like hypocrisy, and calling someone not only a hypocrite, but suggesting that their arguments are "simplistic" are both meant as complements....I see.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  4. #504
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    .

    All terrorists are "civilians". Do you think they follow the Geneva conventions?
    A terrorist is a combatant. Combatant status does newgate civilian status. Rhetoric is not combat.




    I wasn't discussing his "civilian" status. Osamma bin laden is a "civilian".
    See above.


    It's not just "rhetoric I disagree with". He is advocating and supporting the idea of 'one brave man' who should murder 300,000 Americans. Do you agree with this "rhetoric"? This has to stop.
    I disagree wit his rhetoric and I agree that it has to stop, or even more important, it has to stop being an effective means of recruiting those who woudl actually carry out these types of actions. I believe martyring him will act in the opposite direction.


    Perhaps you should point out this "fallacy".
    I just decribed one of them (moving the goalposts) and your response was "whatever". You also equivocate on what a civilian and what a terrorist is.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 09-27-10 at 01:23 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #505
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    So by using terms like hypocrisy, and calling someone not only a hypocrite, but suggesting that their arguments are "simplistic" are both meant as complements....I see.


    j-mac
    Those comments were not directed at the person. Instead they were directed at the arguments presented by a person. The arugmetns presented were both simplistic (based on the false dichotomy and strawman) and hypocritical (based on the equivocations and moving of the goal posts).

    Also, it's important to note that I can even cite instances when I have acknowledged the hypocricy inherent in my own arguements on certain subjects (a specific instance would be regarding my failure to denounce the SC decision against the Chicago gun laws despite my anti-federalist ideology. By supporting that SC decision, the postion I took was hypocritical when viewed ideologically).

    If someone is willing to acknowledge the hypocritical nature fo their arguments and then provide a justification for that hypocricy which they can live with, then they are of the belief that the hypocricy is not a detriment to their argument.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #506
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Those comments were not directed at the person. Instead they were directed at the arguments presented by a person. The arugmetns presented were both simplistic (based on the false dichotomy and strawman) and hypocritical (based on the equivocations and moving of the goal posts).

    Also, it's important to note that I can even cite instances when I have acknowledged the hypocricy inherent in my own arguements on certain subjects (a specific instance would be regarding my failure to denounce the SC decision against the Chicago gun laws despite my anti-federalist ideology. By supporting that SC decision, the postion I took was hypocritical when viewed ideologically).

    If someone is willing to acknowledge the hypocritical nature fo their arguments and then provide a justification for that hypocricy which they can live with, then they are of the belief that the hypocricy is not a detriment to their argument.

    Well, I don't know what you meant, I'd have to know your heart to know that, and I think that is impossible for anyone to know about someone else. However, I do know that on boards like these, your purely cerebral explanation as to why you use some of the phrasing like you do, can, and does very easily fall flat.

    I don't know your education, or what you do for a living, but when you start throwing around terminology like hypocrisy, and simplistic, it can all too easily be misinterpreted.

    that's all.

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  7. #507
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Well, I don't know what you meant, I'd have to know your heart to know that, and I think that is impossible for anyone to know about someone else. However, I do know that on boards like these, your purely cerebral explanation as to why you use some of the phrasing like you do, can, and does very easily fall flat.

    I don't know your education, or what you do for a living, but when you start throwing around terminology like hypocrisy, and simplistic, it can all too easily be misinterpreted.

    that's all.

    j-mac
    I cannot control how others perceive my statements, but I know of no other efficient way to discuss the hypocriocy inhrent within an argument or the simplicity of the "black and white" perspective that is presented in a false diochotomy without using those terms.

    If such an instance where offense is taken, such as this instance with you, I try to explain my use of these terms, which are entirely based on the arguments presented, not some sort of personal animosity. I can't help it if these explanations ring hollow to you, because I cannot control your perceptions. All I can do is respond with honesty. If the honest answer is not accepted, then I am unfortunately unable to present anything else to explain the situation.

    As I mentioned, I have called my own positions hypocritical in the past. So even if my explanation rings hollow to you, at least they are verifiable: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1058829234
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #508
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Tucker Case;1059007962]A terrorist is a combatant. Combatant status does newgate civilian status. Rhetoric is not combat.
    I've never heard of a terrorist described as a "combatant" before but if that's what this guy is, then you'd surely agree he is fair game.
    I disagree wit his rhetoric and I agree that it has to stop,
    It "has" to stop? Just how are you going to make him stop? He and his supporters would laugh at you before they disembowel you!

    or even more important, it has to stop being an effective means of recruiting those who woudl actually carry out these types of actions. I believe martyring him will act in the opposite direction.
    But it is an effective means and sooner or later some "brave" Muslim is going to try and kill 300,000 Americans in the way he described, at which point you will again say "This has to stop"! You attempt to appear as though you are taking a strong stand but this is what you probably meant by "rhetoric", another word about which you only have casual acquaintance.

    And martyring him? We have as many bullets as they have potential martyrs. Not as many of them are wanting the possibility of virgins as you might think. I wouldn't proscribe inaction because there might be "martyrs".

    I just decribed one of them (moving the goalposts) and your response was "whatever".
    You were running all over the place and it was dull and meaningless.
    You also equivocate on what a civilian and what a terrorist is.
    Another pointless remark. A terrorist is anyone who carries out, supports or advocates terrorism. That will explain it all if you genuinely understand the definition of terrorism, and it is not to be confused with combatism. It is still you who doesn't understand the difference between a terrorist and a combatant. It''s as though English isn't your first language. Say so and I'll cut you some slack.

  9. #509
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    I've never heard of a terrorist described as a "combatant" before but if that's what this guy is, then you'd surely agree he is fair game.
    You never heard the term "unlawful combatants" used in relation to terrorists?

    And this guy isn't a combatant. When one actually engages in some sort of violence, they become a combatant. If he was a combatant, I would agree that he would be fair game.

    But while he's just a citizen espousing an ideology I disagree with, he is not fair game.


    It "has" to stop? Just how are you going to make him stop? He and his supporters would laugh at you before they disembowel you!
    It has been explained in my discussion with j-mac.


    But it is an effective means and sooner or later some "brave" Muslim is going to try and kill 300,000 Americans in the way he described, at which point you will again say "This has to stop"! You attempt to appear as though you are taking a strong stand but this is what you probably meant by "rhetoric", another word about which you only have casual acquaintance.
    I don't think you have really understood my positions thus far. My apologies for failing to portray them in a way that you would understand. I would absolutely support lethal force in a preemptive sense towards a person who was actually attempting to carry out an attack designed to kill 300,000 Americans in the way this guy described.

    If someone was gathering the specific materials necessary to carry out the attack, for example, they would become a legitimate military target.


    And martyring him? We have as many bullets as they have potential martyrs. Not as many of them are wanting the possibility of virgins as you might think. I wouldn't proscribe inaction because there might be "martyrs".
    You seem to think that taking different actions means inaction. That is fallacious.

    You were running all over the place and it was dull and meaningless.

    That is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, but it doesn't change the fact that your arguments are fallacious and that this has been pointed out to you. I cannot make you present a logically valid argument, I can only point out the illogical nature of the arguments you have presented. It's ultimately your choice to repair that or accept the illogical nature of your arguments or not.


    Another pointless remark. A terrorist is anyone who carries out, supports or advocates terrorism. That will explain it all if you genuinely understand the definition of terrorism, and it is not to be confused with combatism. It is still you who doesn't understand the difference between a terrorist and a combatant.

    How can it be a "pointless" comment when you actually prove it to be accurate with your response to it?

    It''s as though English isn't your first language. Say so and I'll cut you some slack.
    English is my first language. I know the definitions of the words we have been using. It's how I can recognize your equivocations and fallacies.

    And what would you need to "cut me some slack" from? It's not like you've actually presented any evidence that I'm using words incorrectly.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 09-27-10 at 02:57 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #510
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    You never heard the term "unlawful combatants" used in relation to terrorists?
    Only from their apologists. But whether you want to call him a combatant or an unlawful combatant, he's still a combatant and thus fair game.

    And this guy isn't a combatant. When one actually engages in some sort of violence, they become a combatant. If he was a combatant, I would agree that he would be fair game.
    Ooops. But isn't he encouraging combatism by wanting a 'brave Muslim' to murder 300,000 Americans? It seems in common law those who aid, abet and encourage criminal behaviour, especially on such a grand scale (even if it is just Americans) are also equally guilty of a crime. Have you not heard of this?

    But while he's just a citizen espousing an ideology I disagree with, he is not fair game.
    Wanting to murder 300,000 Americans is an ideology?

    Well at least you give the appearance of some disapprove anyway.

    It has been explained in my discussion with j-mac.
    Oh, Thanks. I'll have to follow that more closely.
    I don't think you have really understood my positions thus far. My apologies for failing to portray them in a way that you would understand. I would absolutely support lethal force in a preemptive sense towards a person who was actually attempting to carry out an attack designed to kill 300,000 Americans in the way this guy described.
    So we let him continue his search for a brave Muslims and then hope to discover who it might be before he/she kills 300,000 Americans. Is that your plan? You want to catch him/her in the act? I hope they don't think to hide it under a burka or we'll never catch them.

    I find this a little risky for some reason. For example, what if we don't catch him with the anthrax and 300,000 Americans die? What's your follow-up plan?
    If someone was gathering the specific materials necessary to carry out the attack, for example, they would become a legitimate military target.
    If we find him, or her. Do you think that will be easy? You seems to be making up some very strict rules for the Americans that the unlawful combatants don't have to follow at all. Is that fair?

    You seem to think that taking different actions means inaction. That is fallacious.
    But you want to wait until a combatant has enough anthrax to kill 300,000 Americans and then they should make their move, right? I think I've sufficiently outlined the flaws in this plan.

    That is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it
    Thanks
    but it doesn't change the fact that your arguments are fallacious and that this has been pointed out to you. I cannot make you present a logically valid argument, I can only point out the illogical nature of the arguments you have presented. It's ultimately your choice to repair that or accept the illogical nature of your arguments or not.
    Gee, I want to say "whatever" again but I'll just accept what you said.

    How can it be a "pointless" comment when you actually prove it to be accurate with your response to it?
    Are you sure you're responding to the right post??
    English is my first language. I know the definitions of the words we have been using. It's how I can recognize your equivocations and fallacies.
    Okay. Thanks for that.

    And what would you need to "cut me some slack" from? It's not like you've actually presented any evidence that I'm using words incorrectly.
    No, of course not. Words can mean exactly what you want them to mean. Nothing more and nothing less.

Page 51 of 59 FirstFirst ... 414950515253 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •