• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Protesters rally against, for planned Islamic center in New York

BDBoop said:
Surely you are not saying anywhere people gather to pray is perforce a house of worship?

It gives them a place to pray. There are two mosques in that vicinity that are full on a regular basis. One is closer to Ground Zero than the Islamic Cultural Center in Manhattan would be. Are you going to object to that actual mosque?
Click to expand...

Should Mayor Giuliani have turned down the $10 million offered by the Saudi government in the days following 9/11?

j-mac
 
Tucker Case said:
Jamesrage's anaolgy is just as applicable to the situation as the one's you have presented are. If his is not applicable and invalid, then your's has the saem flaw.
Click to expand...

The issue you ORIGINALLY referenced me having with James analogy was not with whether it was applicable but with him stating it was exactly the same thing.

However, incorrect in suggestiong that if his in not applicable mine is not.

You specifically countered my position, I've retorted. Regardless of whether or not we agree with the other, there's at least backing up of our positions there and why we think they're correct.

This is not so with James. Where I have addressed your issues with mine, he's never once addressed the fact that what he's suggesting is not an analog to what I'm arguing. Suggesting that Catholics should not build a church near any place that children go to rgardless of whether or not Catholics ever did anything to children in those places is farther away from my point than my statement of a bar at a place where a drunk driving accident occured is from the point others are making.

Furthermore, I at least put forth some kind of rational behind my defense as to why the difference between my analogies and the real world is legitimate and not enough not to make it "similar". He's done no such thing.

You say scale factors in, but you haven't presented any logical arguments for that factoring, especially with regards to geographical distance.
Click to expand...

My entire argument for why it is wrong to build it there is based off the emotional impact it has on people.

If a particular act has an impact on a larger amount of people then another type of act then generally the ramifications of said act on peoples emotional well being and the importance of said act increases. Take for example murders. Individual murders happen all over the country on a relatively routine basis. They're rememberd by those most directly affected but are usually quick forgotten by those around. However look at serial killers or something like the Beltway Sniper. In those cases the scale is larger and the impact hits a broader amount of people and lasts for a longer amount of time.

If no ones, or a miniscule number of peoples, feelings are being damaged by an action because the scale is so small that by the time something is done no one really remembers it then it doesn't matter in relation to my point on this because no ones having their emotional well being damaged. However if the scale is so large that years and years after it is still a massive event in a large amount of peoples lives and an action will cause them emotional distress then we get back to my argument.

Additionally, scale of the area matters as well. "Close" is a relative term. "The building next door" is in and of itself a meaningless qualification. The building next door in a city could literally be inches apart from your building if not actually connected. Meanwhile, if the scale of the situation is instead a rural community the "Building Next Door" could be a mile down the road.

Then you are equivocationg on the term "right outside" to create a subjective range for your arguments to have a perceived merit that is not inhrenetly present in the argument. The mosque is not "right outside" that's a gross distortion of reality used to create an emotional argument, not a logical one.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have created a subjective range. You're not telling me anything new Tuck. I've admited this, in numerous threads. I specifically outlined the range that I felt would be disrespectful to place this mosque in, why I feel that range is applicable, and I've not verged from those measures. Everyones measures of what's "close" is an arbitrary measure that's subjective.

Actually, Shintoism was teh cause of Pearl Harbor and the militarization of Japan in general. That's why we banned State Shintoism in Japan after WWII and Hirohito had to make a pronouncement that he was human and not a god after WWII.
Click to expand...

Then thank you for that information, I was not aware of it. Thus in part the difference of scale and time as well, as we've moved far enough away from the events of Pearl Harbor that issues that would be highlighted as triggers for extreme negative emotions give way as they become less relevant and less known to more and more passing generations. But with that in mind and now having been educated, yes, I shall be sure in the future to switch my comment concerning a historical japanese mueseum to a Shinto Temple 10 years after Pearl Harbor.

It's not based on logic, it's based on emotion. Just because something is remembered doesn't mean that it justifies the use of equivocation, distortions, and moving the goal posts when making analogies. Especially when one invokes the name of the indivudal victims/sutvivors emotional reactions.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying its based on logic, my argument is based on peoples emotions. The large reason why I feel it is inappropriate to build there is due to peoples emotions.

Let me be very clear, once more, of precisely my point so you can stop with this inane moving the goal posts argument.

I am arguing that building something that directly is involved as a reason/inspiration/cause of a horrible event near enough to the site of said event to to cause a significant amount of those originally affected by said emotional distress is rather tactless and disrespectful.

I'm also arguing that if one is doing such a thing in hopes of repairing the damage done or building bridges that it calls into question their intelligence or integrity when they're specifically doing something that does the very opposite and they continually show they have no regard for that fact.

Finally, I'm saying that being tactless and disrespectful is not illegal, nor should it be illegal, and no legal action should be made stopping said people.

In regards to the first part, different factors will be involved in that. You may think they're arbitrary, perhaps they are. You can say there's no clear way to quantify it. So be it, however that simply throws it into the realm of opinion and frankly YOU disagreeing with my opinion doesn't magically make it wrong nor make your points in support of yours any better than those in support of mine.

9/11 affected more people than a drunk driving accident killing 5 people would affect. It likely has a much more lasting affect on more people than a drunk driving accident that kills 5 people would have. As such, to get a similar reaction...IE a significantly large portion of the people who were originally affected by it significantly upset and emotionally destressed by the notion...between a drunk driving situation and 9/11 I lowered the amount of years apart because I believe its rather logical to assume that a drunk driving situation is likely to be forgotten far sooner by a larger number of those originally affected by it then 9/11 is.

The problem with your analogies is that they all use the emotional reactions of the victims familiies as their basis, but they assume that the number of victim's families extant will affect their emotional reactions regarding time passed and distance from "ground zero".
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm not basing it on the emotional reaction of families. For example, if a drunk driving accident happens in a town it'll likely affect those peoples families, they're close friends, some of their school mates or co-workers, some of the school maters or co-workers of their family and friends, and some citizens that simply read about that accident and are bothered that such a thing happened.

My argument is that as time passes further by, depending on the scale of the event, more and more of those outlying individuals forget about it or its no longer present in their mind to the point where they would pass that location and not even think "oh hey that guy I knew back in school died in a drunk driving crash there." I imagine the mother of someone in that would ALWAYS think that, but the majority of those originally emotionally affect by the situation I think its reasonable to say after a few years it'll slowly no longer be active in many of their minds.

The same can not rightly be said for 9/11 on a similar scale.

It doesn't matter if it's 5 people or 50 people killed in the DUI accident. Teh numebr of victims is does not affect the necessary distance and time passing for tactfullness to be present.
Click to expand...

I absolutely disagree. If EVERYONE in town remembers that a guy died at x location and that its a touchy subject for the town and someone wants to try to build there, he's going to know that everyone in town is a bit iffy about said subject. Or, if he somehow doesn't realize it, he'll learn it soon. If he insists on going forward at that point yeah, somewhat tactless perhaps. However if only a handful of people know he could rightly never even have a legitimate chance to know about it before hand, and by the time he does know about it the outrage is so small and obviously not affecting a large scale of people in the localized population that would've been affected by said thing that I'd think it'd be reasonable to say he was ignorant of the situation at first and only realized it after everything was done and it was not his intent.

If 2 blocks is too close and 10 years too little time when 3,000 peopel are killed, it should follow that tehse distances and times are constant regardless of how the peopel are killed and regardless of how many because the EMOTIONAL reaction for the individual would be constant for those affected.
Click to expand...

You're wanting to turn this into some kind of statistical math problem where in Tucker's world everything must be quantifiable to make sense. Everything doesn't have to be quantifiable. There are differences between what's relatively close regarding a city, a town, and the country. There are differences in scale of affect between something that kills 3,000 people and something that kills 3.

i.e. the family members of the 5 peopel killed in the DUI accident should be just as affected by a bar being built two blocks away from the location of the accident and ten years later as the family members of the 3000+ People killed on 9/11 are by a mosque being built two blocks away and 10 years later.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but the other hundreds of people that were affected in some way shape or form at the time immedietely following the DUI AREN'T probably still as affected by the situation 10 years, or may've mostly forgot all about it consiously. However, I would dare say the majority of people who didn't lose someone on 9/11 ARE still significantly affected by the situation 10 years later.

McDonald's ooften crop up just before democracy becoems established in a country. Check out Hungary, Yugoslavia, the USSR.
Click to expand...

Simply because it captailizes off Democracy does not mean it advocates or preaches the ideology of Democracy.

True or false: McDonalds is often used as a symbol of American ideals.
Click to expand...

True, primarily by people attempting to degrade said ideals...ie not people that are generally attempting to push Capitalism of Democracy.

Mosques ARE pushed as a symbol of Islam by those actually attempting to promote islam.

McDonalds isn't pushed as a symbol of Democracy by those actually attempting to promote democracy.

I've never heard anyone go "Look! McDonalds, what a shining symbol of American Democracy, what wonderous and magnificant site showing the true pillars of democracy".

McDonalds is referenced as a symbol of American Democracy as an insult by those mocking it most times, not as a legitimate peddler of democracy. Last I checked you can't go into McDonalds and order a Super Sized Right to vote with a side of Free Speech.
 
Rezonator said:
Unfortunately, that was generated by your own mind. That's not what my post said at all.
Click to expand...

Oh, my bad. DO tell me more about "Islamac propoganda fantasies". Bated breath -n- all, here.
 
Zyphlin said:
The issue you ORIGINALLY referenced me having with James analogy was not with whether it was applicable but with him stating it was exactly the same thing.

However, incorrect in suggestiong that if his in not applicable mine is not.

You specifically countered my position, I've retorted. Regardless of whether or not we agree with the other, there's at least backing up of our positions there and why we think they're correct.

This is not so with James. Where I have addressed your issues with mine, he's never once addressed the fact that what he's suggesting is not an analog to what I'm arguing. Suggesting that Catholics should not build a church near any place that children go to rgardless of whether or not Catholics ever did anything to children in those places is farther away from my point than my statement of a bar at a place where a drunk driving accident occured is from the point others are making.

Furthermore, I at least put forth some kind of rational behind my defense as to why the difference between my analogies and the real world is legitimate and not enough not to make it "similar". He's done no such thing.
Click to expand...

You have a point but I would argue that neither analogy is completely accurate, though.



My entire argument for why it is wrong to build it there is based off the emotional impact it has on people.

If a particular act has an impact on a larger amount of people then another type of act then generally the ramifications of said act on peoples emotional well being and the importance of said act increases. Take for example murders. Individual murders happen all over the country on a relatively routine basis. They're rememberd by those most directly affected but are usually quick forgotten by those around. However look at serial killers or something like the Beltway Sniper. In those cases the scale is larger and the impact hits a broader amount of people and lasts for a longer amount of time.

If no ones, or a miniscule number of peoples, feelings are being damaged by an action because the scale is so small that by the time something is done no one really remembers it then it doesn't matter in relation to my point on this because no ones having their emotional well being damaged. However if the scale is so large that years and years after it is still a massive event in a large amount of peoples lives and an action will cause them emotional distress then we get back to my argument.

Additionally, scale of the area matters as well. "Close" is a relative term. "The building next door" is in and of itself a meaningless qualification. The building next door in a city could literally be inches apart from your building if not actually connected. Meanwhile, if the scale of the situation is instead a rural community the "Building Next Door" could be a mile down the road.



Yes, I have created a subjective range. You're not telling me anything new Tuck. I've admited this, in numerous threads. I specifically outlined the range that I felt would be disrespectful to place this mosque in, why I feel that range is applicable, and I've not verged from those measures. Everyones measures of what's "close" is an arbitrary measure that's subjective.



Then thank you for that information, I was not aware of it. Thus in part the difference of scale and time as well, as we've moved far enough away from the events of Pearl Harbor that issues that would be highlighted as triggers for extreme negative emotions give way as they become less relevant and less known to more and more passing generations. But with that in mind and now having been educated, yes, I shall be sure in the future to switch my comment concerning a historical japanese mueseum to a Shinto Temple 10 years after Pearl Harbor.



I'm not saying its based on logic, my argument is based on peoples emotions. The large reason why I feel it is inappropriate to build there is due to peoples emotions.

Let me be very clear, once more, of precisely my point so you can stop with this inane moving the goal posts argument.

I am arguing that building something that directly is involved as a reason/inspiration/cause of a horrible event near enough to the site of said event to to cause a significant amount of those originally affected by said emotional distress is rather tactless and disrespectful.

I'm also arguing that if one is doing such a thing in hopes of repairing the damage done or building bridges that it calls into question their intelligence or integrity when they're specifically doing something that does the very opposite and they continually show they have no regard for that fact.

Finally, I'm saying that being tactless and disrespectful is not illegal, nor should it be illegal, and no legal action should be made stopping said people.

In regards to the first part, different factors will be involved in that. You may think they're arbitrary, perhaps they are. You can say there's no clear way to quantify it. So be it, however that simply throws it into the realm of opinion and frankly YOU disagreeing with my opinion doesn't magically make it wrong nor make your points in support of yours any better than those in support of mine.

9/11 affected more people than a drunk driving accident killing 5 people would affect. It likely has a much more lasting affect on more people than a drunk driving accident that kills 5 people would have. As such, to get a similar reaction...IE a significantly large portion of the people who were originally affected by it significantly upset and emotionally destressed by the notion...between a drunk driving situation and 9/11 I lowered the amount of years apart because I believe its rather logical to assume that a drunk driving situation is likely to be forgotten far sooner by a larger number of those originally affected by it then 9/11 is.



Actually, I'm not basing it on the emotional reaction of families. For example, if a drunk driving accident happens in a town it'll likely affect those peoples families, they're close friends, some of their school mates or co-workers, some of the school maters or co-workers of their family and friends, and some citizens that simply read about that accident and are bothered that such a thing happened.

My argument is that as time passes further by, depending on the scale of the event, more and more of those outlying individuals forget about it or its no longer present in their mind to the point where they would pass that location and not even think "oh hey that guy I knew back in school died in a drunk driving crash there." I imagine the mother of someone in that would ALWAYS think that, but the majority of those originally emotionally affect by the situation I think its reasonable to say after a few years it'll slowly no longer be active in many of their minds.

The same can not rightly be said for 9/11 on a similar scale.



I absolutely disagree. If EVERYONE in town remembers that a guy died at x location and that its a touchy subject for the town and someone wants to try to build there, he's going to know that everyone in town is a bit iffy about said subject. Or, if he somehow doesn't realize it, he'll learn it soon. If he insists on going forward at that point yeah, somewhat tactless perhaps. However if only a handful of people know he could rightly never even have a legitimate chance to know about it before hand, and by the time he does know about it the outrage is so small and obviously not affecting a large scale of people in the localized population that would've been affected by said thing that I'd think it'd be reasonable to say he was ignorant of the situation at first and only realized it after everything was done and it was not his intent.



You're wanting to turn this into some kind of statistical math problem where in Tucker's world everything must be quantifiable to make sense. Everything doesn't have to be quantifiable. There are differences between what's relatively close regarding a city, a town, and the country. There are differences in scale of affect between something that kills 3,000 people and something that kills 3.


Absolutely, but the other hundreds of people that were affected in some way shape or form at the time immedietely following the DUI AREN'T probably still as affected by the situation 10 years, or may've mostly forgot all about it consiously.
Click to expand...

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.

However, I would dare say the majority of people who didn't lose someone on 9/11 ARE still significantly affected by the situation 10 years later.
Click to expand...

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.

Simply because it captailizes off Democracy does not mean it advocates or preaches the ideology of Democracy.
Click to expand...

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.

True, primarily by people attempting to degrade said ideals...ie not people that are generally attempting to push Capitalism of Democracy.
Click to expand...

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.

Mosques ARE pushed as a symbol of Islam by those actually attempting to promote islam.
Click to expand...

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.

People feel that the US attempts to spread democracy for it's capitalistic pursuits. i.e. for profit.

With things like Operation Ajax being real events that occured, there is some truth to the comments

I've never heard anyone go "Look! McDonalds, what a shining symbol of American Democracy, what wonderous and magnificant site showing the true pillars of democracy".
Click to expand...

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.

McDonalds is referenced as a symbol of American Democracy as an insult by those mocking it most times, not as a legitimate peddler of democracy. Last I checked you can't go into McDonalds and order a Super Sized Right to vote with a side of Free Speech.
Click to expand...

And last I checked you can't go into a mosque and order a suicide bomber to go with a side of hijacking.
 
Last edited:
BDBoop said:
There are two mosques in that vicinity that are full on a regular basis. One is closer to Ground Zero than the Islamic Cultural Center in Manhattan would be.
Click to expand...

Really? Well that little fact should be talked about more. Seems that would be a good argument for your side. First time I've heard about that.....hmmmmmm
 
Rezonator said:
Because in Islam, lying to non-Muslims is a sacrament: taqiyya.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so? People lie all the time. Hell, it's a politician's bread and butter. So why is it bad if Muslims are lying? Just because they say it's cool? I don't get it. Religious types do all sorts of things they claim are for their religion, it doesn't mean it's something to fear.

Rezonator said:
Because Islam is a de facto political state whose purpose in the United States is the overthrow of the American government, to replace it with a totalitarian Islamic theocracy:
Click to expand...

Let's even say your Chicken Little argument is valid. So what? What are they going to do? Change our Constitution? Change our laws? They can't do that. America is a secular government, that's that. A mosque isn't going to change that. And I for one think it's irrational to believe it will.

Rezonator said:
“The Believers are but a single brotherhood.” —Quran 49:10

“A Muslim has no nationality except his belief.” —Syed Qutb

“Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.” — Syed Abul A’ala Maududi​
Click to expand...

So what does this mean for us? We can't allow the practice of Islam in America? Should we betray our own values and beliefs over a freak out like "Islam is gonna get us"? I don't think so. Let them not like our government all they want; nothing they can do about it. And so long as we do not betray ourselves, we win.

Rezonator said:
Because Sharia law is the antithesis of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and proponents of it want the Constitution and the Bill of Rights shredded to be replaced by their "divine" Sharia law.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I don't think you quite understand the implications of your statement here and how it utterly destroys your previous, fear riddled argument.

Rezonator said:
Because many of us care and are not apathetic about defending our nation and principles against enemies both domestic and foreign.

Any more questions?
Click to expand...

Oh please. Rah rah rah, go America! Except that it's not even Go America. Some of us don't freak out at things which can have no effect is all. Terrorists cannot destroy America, Islam cannot destroy America. We ain't so fragile as to fall over with the slightest breeze. I don't know what some of y'all believe about our integrity and resolve; but America is strong. Stronger than any one religion or any group of nut jobs. Freak out all you want, but as soon as you betray our values and beliefs is the moment you let the otherside win.
 
Ikari said:
Freak out all you want, but as soon as you betray our values and beliefs is the moment you let the otherside win.
Click to expand...

Oh, so apparently my comment that his post reeks of "The only good _____ is a dead _____" really was absolutely accurate.
 
Rezonator said:
Because in Islam, lying to non-Muslims is a sacrament: taqiyya.

Because Islam is a de facto political state whose purpose in the United States is the overthrow of the American government, to replace it with a totalitarian Islamic theocracy:

“The Believers are but a single brotherhood.” —Quran 49:10

“A Muslim has no nationality except his belief.” —Syed Qutb

“Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.” — Syed Abul A’ala Maududi​

Because Sharia law is the antithesis of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and proponents of it want the Constitution and the Bill of Rights shredded to be replaced by their "divine" Sharia law.

Because many of us care and are not apathetic about defending our nation and principles against enemies both domestic and foreign.

Any more questions?
Click to expand...

You can find equally damning quotes in the old and new testament. -- What's your point?? -- to show us your complete ignorance about mainstream Islam.

Welcome to DP.
 
Ikari said:
Oh please. Rah rah rah, go America! Except that it's not even Go America. Some of us don't freak out at things which can have no effect is all. Terrorists cannot destroy America, Islam cannot destroy America. We ain't so fragile as to fall over with the slightest breeze. I don't know what some of y'all believe about our integrity and resolve; but America is strong. Stronger than any one religion or any group of nut jobs. Freak out all you want, but as soon as you betray our values and beliefs is the moment you let the otherside win.
Click to expand...

Brilliant! Well said. Thank you.

We should end the thread on that note!
 
Zyphlin said:
I guess the Constitution is an inconvenient document to some people...

Pretty pathetic, if you ask me, that a freedom loving country can be so bigoted and politically correct...

Thanks MSNBC and MoveOn for dumbing down our country and wiping your ass with the Bill of Rights. 'Freedom of Speech and Assembly (except against Islam)'. Idiots!

Seriously Hazl, what you'r doing is no different than what they're doing. They're using their CONSTITUTIONAL right to free speech to speak against something, just as you are.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you don't understand what the freedom of speech means, you and Dr. Laura should do some studying. Only the government can infringe on your free speech rights.
 
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.
 
Jetboogieman said:
The first statement, hey, it is technically true, you have killed more innocent muslims then AND LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR TO YOU!

He STATED "Innocent non-Muslims"
Click to expand...

We have more innocent Muslim blood on our hands than AQ has innocent non-Muslim blood on their hands? Bull****.
 
Agent Ferris said:
We have more innocent Muslim blood on our hands than AQ has innocent non-Muslim blood on their hands? Bull****.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence one way or the other?
 
Tucker Case said:
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.

.
Click to expand...

Amazing....what a wide devide. You wonder why people on the right don't believe those on the left have a patriotic bone in their bodies?
Example A.
 
Boo Radley said:
Thisis the game played that so disappoints me. The extreme effort made to misrepresent every statement into something it isn't. It keeps us divided and causes more pain where understnading might develop.
Click to expand...

Is that why you made this childish, accusatory statement?

Boo Radley said:
Like I said above, if the klann works better for you, fine.
Click to expand...

Is Barbtx--like me--being accused of being a white supremist, for opposing the Ground Zero mosque?

The real division takes place, when people are called racists for simply disagreeing with something that all the Libbos support.
Click to expand...
 
Tucker Case said:
You have a point but I would argue that neither analogy is completely accurate, though.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying either is absolutely exactly accurate, I"m saying they're similar. My issue with James previously was he said his example was EXACTLY the same.

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.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.
Click to expand...

Alright....

Where am I saying this Mosque represents terrorism or terrorist values?

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.
Click to expand...

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".

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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.

And last I checked you can't go into a mosque and order a suicide bomber to go with a side of hijacking.
Click to expand...

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.

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
 
Tucker Case said:
Where'd you get the silly idea that I'm on the left?
Click to expand...

By what you said. Parsing too.
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.
Click to expand...

I just thought that was a stunner. It still blows me away that that happened to my country. I'm still ticked off.
 
The entire opposition to the Mosque is based on essentially a reincarnation of Jim Crow against Muslims. They are basically saying "you can worship just don't do it here". This argument is no different than the argument used against blacks during the Jim Crow era. The fact that these demonstrations had/have racist undertones is absolutely no surprise. They even harassed an African-American man, claiming they thought he was a Mosque supporter when in fact he never said his opinion on anything whatsoever. In reality it was because he looked like a Muslim.

I hope the Mosque gets built just to spit in the faces of all the bigots opposing it.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
The entire opposition to the Mosque is based on essentially a reincarnation of Jim Crow against Muslims. They are basically saying "you can worship just don't do it here". This argument is no different than the argument used against blacks during the Jim Crow era. The fact that these demonstrations had/have racist undertones is absolutely no surprise. They even harassed an African-American man, claiming they thought he was a Mosque supporter when in fact he never said his opinion on anything whatsoever. In reality it was because he looked like a Muslim.
Click to expand...

By that logic, when Muslims hold anti-Israel protests, they're implementing their own Jim Crow laws against Jews. Judging from the number of anti-Israel protests there have been in this country, Muslims are far more racist than anyone.

Sucks when that door swings both ways. Huh?

I hope the Mosque gets built just to spit in the faces of all the bigots opposing it.
Click to expand...



And, that's exactly what you'll get. The Mosque will be built to spit in the faces of the American people.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
The entire opposition to the Mosque is based on essentially a reincarnation of Jim Crow against Muslims. They are basically saying "you can worship just don't do it here". This argument is no different than the argument used against blacks during the Jim Crow era. The fact that these demonstrations had/have racist undertones is absolutely no surprise. They even harassed an African-American man, claiming they thought he was a Mosque supporter when in fact he never said his opinion on anything whatsoever. In reality it was because he looked like a Muslim.

I hope the Mosque gets built just to spit in the faces of all the bigots opposing it.
Click to expand...

I didn't believe it before, but I've now been convinced that Obama must be a muslim.

Nothing else would engender the defence.
 
stealthy said:
I didn't believe it before, but I've now been convinced that Obama must be a muslim.

Nothing else would engender the defence.
Click to expand...

Really? Wow, you are EASY!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom