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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.