I know that, I was being ironic with the fact that he was bitching about people protesting the mosque think the constitution is an inconvenient document when they were doing nothing different than what he was doing, simply exercising free speech. So I was sarcastically rearranging his words to point out he was doing the same thing.
The real division takes place, when people are called racists for simply disagreeing with something that all the Libbos support.
I simply disagree. Scale can be talked about as an abstract without requiring specific numbers and specific points set that tick when it becomes okay or not okay and various things. Simply because you wish to create a hard and fast rule doesn't mean my argument or my views or my opinions must conform to that.The problem I have with your argument is that it seeks to use scale as a reason to justify the extension of the area of concern over time. If you bring scale into the discussion, then there must be a quantifiable aspect to the argument.
Thus, my desire to turn it into a stastical math problem is a natural outcropping of your defense. By incorporating scale into your argument, you set the tone for statistical analysis.
I would highly disagree. I would say there is still significantly strong emotions amongst people in relation to 9/11 and still a significant recognition of the day and the occurrence. For example, I know of three couples...myself included....that were nearly going to have their wedding on the second weekend of September and upon looking at the calender and seeing it was September 11th IMMEDIATELY reconsidered due to the emotions and feelings it stirred up instantly and the desire to not have that tied up with the emotions of their wedding. None of those couples lost someone in the attacks or knew someone that did. I can not fathom someone, let alone three sets of couples, 10 years after a drunk driving accident that killed say some person in school that they kind of knew of and had affected them in some way when it initially happened suddenly realizing the day they picked for their wedding coincided with the crash and thus changing it.I would dare say that the majority of people who didn't lose someone in 9/11 are minimally affected by it on an emotional level now.
Is the impact of 9/11 still as sharp on people as it was the day of? No, but I'd dare say its still very present and prevelant in many peoples minds still ten years later.
Alright....Thats' part of the reason why the anology works perfectly fo rthis situation, albeit in reverse.
McDonald's isn't democracy, but it absolutely represents Western ideology and Western values with exactly the same degree of accuracy as a Mosque represents terrorism and terrorist values.
Where am I saying this Mosque represents terrorism or terrorist values?
No, I'm not suggesting mosques directly are related to 9/11. I'm saying ISLAM directly is related to 9/11. I've yet to still see anyone whose shown that it isn't. All I've ever seen is people going "They're mad that we're meddling in their land or that we attacked [random middle eastern country]", however those anger issues all lead back to their religion and their belief that we're invading the "Land of Islam".And the exacty same thing is true about the representations of mosques as beign related to 9/11. It is primarily by people attempting to degrade said religion. i.e. not people that are generally attempting to promote the real ideological frameworks of the religion of Islam.
I'm saying Islam is directly involved in the acts of 9/11. I'm saying that rightly or wrongly when many people think of 9/11 and Islam together at once, even people who at other times have a neutral to somewhat positive view of Islam, that it stirs up extremely negative and angry emotions. I'm saying as such having a mosque whose purpose is to be an activist location around 9/11, using its vicinity to 9/11 for its activist purposes, no matter the benevolent intentions (and frankly I question those intentions), is going to cause unneeded additional emotional distress and problems to individuals traveling to what is essentially a historic national site that is unneeded. Additionally, I think such will do MORE harm to the cause of Moderate Islam and acceptance of it in this country than good and thus is detrimental to their supposed cause and to what's best for the nation.
Islam didn't cause it. Islam was instrumental in recruiting for it, fabricating a reason for it, motivating it, allowing for the methods that were used, and justifying it after the fact. Again, last I checked McDonalds don't get built because of motivation on the part of the builder to spread democracy, aren't justified in being built because democracy says its okay, not built in a such a way that it's okay because dmeocracy says so, or finds its investors by suggesting that they are doing Democracy's bidding and will have Democracies favor if they assist in building that McDonalds.But Islam is not what caused 9/11. It was a response to that which many people who oppose the West feel is perfectly represented by McDonald's. Which is why I chose that particular company for my analogy.
Wonderful. IF a majority of people who were oppressed in Russia somehow felt great emotional distress due to such an advertising campaign and the McDonalds being built there then I'd have said it was tactless to build it there as well.The first McDonald's in Russia was dubbed "a taste of freedom" by many at the time. It had record breaking lines to get a taste of democracy and freedom. I have a vivid memory of it's coverage here when it happened.
Nope, but I'm far more likely to find a tangible example of Islam fueling the purposes, methods, and justifications of a suicide bomber then you're going to be able to find a tangible example of McDonalds actively fueling the purposes, methods, and justifications of someone purposefully spreading democracy.And last I checked you can't go into a mosque and order a suicide bomber to go with a side of hijacking.
But even if we accept your premise...
It doesn't really change my point. I would be against a McDonalds being opened as a sign of "Freedom" in an area where the majority of the people have been oppressed and feel that opening said McDonalds is hurtful and disrespectful and they don't want it there when they didn't ask for said "Freedom" nor wanted it.
To my understanding, that wasn't the case in Russia. They were welcoming to it, and indeed it was news reporters and comments by Russians in favor of it that I believe the "taste of freedom" line was dubbed
I just thought that was a stunner. It still blows me away that that happened to my country. I'm still ticked off.I would dare say that the majority of people who didn't lose someone in 9/11 are minimally affected by it on an emotional level now.