obama endorses mosque at ground zero

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

I haven't been keeping up with this thread but here's my 2 cents...
Almost 70% percent of Americans are against building a Mosque
near ground zero
So am I to assume that 70%
of our population is made up of racist, ignorant, islamaphobes?
Personally, I think it is in bad taste and unwise to build a Mosque
near ground zero. Even our President who first sounded
like he was for building the mosque on Friday, reiterated with this
on Saturday
Obama-  "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding."

I know many of our more enlightened  and sophisticated
people in this Country "get it." They understand that it's not about
a Mosque near ground zero. It's about standing up for what make our Nation great.
We have many freedoms, and one of which is the freedom to practice any religion
we see fit. But there are many of us who DO NOT and WILL NOT
ever see it in that light. Many of our population will see it as an
insult to the people who have lost their lives in 9-11
So is building a Mosque near ground zero right?
I don't know.. is it wise, or in good taste.
I think not.

Your argument is based on the ad populum logical fallacy. Just because many people believe one side does not make them right.
Over 70% of Nazi Germany approved of Hitler's actions.
Around 70% of the white south approved of slavery before the civil war.
So by your logic, there is nothing racist about the holocaust or slavery because a lot of people approved of it.
Also, in terms of people being right, the same chunk of the U.S. population believed Iraq had WMD, and almost as many believed Saddam was linked to 9/11. Were they right because many people agreed?
See the problem in your argument?
Good.
Its been said earlier in this thread and I will reiterate because you admitted you skipped most of it: civil rights can not be decided based upon popularity. They exist so that the majority can not oppress the minority, no matter how large that majority is.

[able]

I'm really pretty neutral in this whole thing.
I'm just stating that the whole things seems like a bad idea. That's all.
Okay, lets say this thing gets built and is up and running in a year.
How long will it take till one of these right wing nut jobs runs up
in there and starts unloading firearms in the name of "freedom"

I'm sure the aftermath of that
will spark some interesting debate as well
Instead of bringing different people together
I'd imagine that would do the exact opposite
again, I'm just saying that the whole things just smells like a bad idea

I'm aware that my opinion is not popular

[chuck d]

Yeah, I didn't think he was necessarily saying that 70% of Americans think it's wrong, just that it's in bad taste.  No?

[Beer Keg Peg Leg]

Yeah, black people and white people should never have started 'intermarrying' either, it's in 'bad taste' and will just cause unneeded controversy.

[chuck d]

I'm only addressing the attempt to apply academic logical fallacies to argue against someone's taste.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

I'm only addressing the attempt to apply academic logical fallacies to argue against someone's taste.

My claim was valid. The popularity of an opinion does not make its logic any more valid. He claimed that because so many people believed it was a bad idea, they must not be racist or ignorant. That clearly is not necessarily the case. He was using a textbook ad populum approach to support his argument.

Yeah, black people and white people should never have started 'intermarrying' either, it's in 'bad taste' and will just cause unneeded controversy.

Its only a matter of time before some nut goes on a killing spree of intermarried people, which will obviously spark more debate. We should always cower to the will of violent people. That's how the civil rights movement succeeded too.

[chuck d]

Expand Quote

I'm only addressing the attempt to apply academic logical fallacies to argue against someone's taste.

[close]

My claim was valid. The popularity of an opinion does not make its logic any more valid. He claimed that because so many people believed it was a bad idea, they must not be racist or ignorant. That clearly is not necessarily the case. He was using a textbook ad populum approach to support his argument.

So you still believe that everyone who opposes the idea is a xenophobe?

[CUDDLEMONSTER]

if the mosque is in "bad taste" i think it's time to examine which group of people have been bestowed "good taste." the cordoba house has been financed and planned for years from back when even republicans acknowledged that when you are in a war for hearts and minds it's important to distinguish that we are not at war with islam, which would not only be historically misguided but counterproductive and unwinnable, we are at war with terrorism. to ask them to stop construction at this late a date just because some conservative politicians have decided to invent a wedge issue is ridiculous. it should also be mentioned that under construction mosques have been attacked from california to wisconsin, if cordoba house is not allowed to be built it would set a precedent in favor of an already disturbing trend happening in america of intimidation and innuendo leveled against muslim places of worship.

[chuck d]

I think they have every right to build it.  However, it is of taste on par with American soldiers draping the US flag over statues of Sadam when we were supposed to be "liberators" rather than conquerors.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

I'm only addressing the attempt to apply academic logical fallacies to argue against someone's taste.

[close]

My claim was valid. The popularity of an opinion does not make its logic any more valid. He claimed that because so many people believed it was a bad idea, they must not be racist or ignorant. That clearly is not necessarily the case. He was using a textbook ad populum approach to support his argument.

[close]

So you still believe that everyone who opposes the idea is a xenophobe?

No. I never said that- Muslims aren't necessarily foreign dipshit. What does it have to do with xenophobia? Don't fucking pull some Dr. Laura bullshit where the people taking ignorant positions get offended when they are called ignorant. I do believe that if you oppose any group's ability to be able to build a temple on private property that they own that you oppose freedom of religion, and are taking an ignorant and dangerous position. You can like it or dislike it, but to say they shouldn't have the right to is a different thing. The poll was on whether or not they should be allowed to build it, not whether or not it is in good taste. I don't see what is so complicated about that.
Also, are you going to admit that it clearly is an ad populum logical fallacy? I mean, that is what you came at me for- not my actual position on the issue.
And when are we going to finish our conversation about Arizona? You kind of fell off when the judge agreed with me that the law was clearly unconstitutional. I never heard your reaction.

[chuck d]

Oh man.  First of all, do you think the Arizona thing is over?  Wasn't my whole point that the reason for the law was to create an issue and that's exactly what's happening?  The more courts the law faces, the more states that consider similar legislation, the more evidence for my case.  Calm down dude, you're in your late 20's?  You get so emotional.  You've been waiting very patiently for me to log in to the Slap forum to bring that up haven't you?

Able's claim was that "Almost 70% percent of Americans are against building a Mosque near ground zero."  That's what I read.  If that means that they believe they should not be allowed to build it and not whether or not they thought it was a good idea, then my bad.  Take your lithium and breathe.

In any regard, he brought up "So am I to assume that 70% of our population is made up of racist, ignorant, islamaphobes?" in response to your habit of making every issue as simple as "homophobes!  xenophobes!  racists!"  If only, brother.  I understand that his argument was ad populum, but I also understand that he was not really arguing that because the masses are in opposition, that they are correct.  He was baiting you to admit that you think everyone who opposes this is a xenophobe, and that present day America is equal to 1940's Germany.

You seriously need to get laid.

(ad hominem, teach?)

[chuck d]

And getting back to dlx111...

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

Oh man.  First of all, do you think the Arizona thing is over?  Wasn't my whole point that the reason for the law was to create an issue and that's exactly what's happening?  The more courts the law faces, the more states that consider similar legislation, the more evidence for my case.  Calm down dude, you're in your late 20's?  You get so emotional.  You've been waiting very patiently for me to log in to the Slap forum to bring that up haven't you?

Able's claim was that "Almost 70% percent of Americans are against building a Mosque near ground zero."  That's what I read.  If that means that they believe they should not be allowed to build it and not whether or not they thought it was a good idea, then my bad.  Take your lithium and breathe.

In any regard, he brought up "So am I to assume that 70% of our population is made up of racist, ignorant, islamaphobes?" in response to your habit of making every issue as simple as "homophobes!  xenophobes!  racists!"  If only, brother.  I understand that his argument was ad populum, but I also understand that he was not really arguing that because the masses are in opposition, that they are correct.  He was baiting you to admit that you think everyone who opposes this is a xenophobe, and that present day America is equal to 1940's Germany.

You seriously need to get laid.

(ad hominem, teach?)

Every issue an issue of that? No. I never have said it was. When a white cop kills an unarmed black man, race becomes an issue no matter what you talk about, when Arizona breaks the constitution and creates a situation that breeds racial profiling while simultaneously banning ethnic studies in its schools, it is a racial issue. When people want to ban a mosque being built in New York city near ground zero, it is a test of religious tolerance. I'm not just inventing the scenarios out of thin air, and other than those situations, race hasn't come up as an issue. You just like to claim its not there when it is, and then instead of looking at issues as they are, classify me as a reactionary. The way you talk reminds me of that Dr. Laura radio clip, where she says all that racist shit then comes back saying "don't naacp me, don't misrepresent me as racist, the people who do that are terrible." Its so cliche, and its wrong too.

And it may not be over in Az, but the only time it has come up for a challenge, the judge has only agreed with  me. My logic is sound,and that law was unconstitutional. Simple as that. They can appeal it all they want, the facts of the case won't change. Also, I guarantee the ruling is upheld.
(and not really ad hominem, the krux of your argument was not based on the insults, they were like a cherry on top)
And I'm not actually as worked up as you picture me.

[chuck d]

I was referring to the part about you needing to get laid.  While it may be true, it neither supports nor discredits any argument.

[brycickle]

Calling it a mosque is wrong. There's a mosque in it, but it has a pool too, so we all might as well refer to it as an indoor swimming hole.

Lot's of Mosques have pools in them.  They're called hamams.

[brycickle]

Expand Quote

UGH- one more thing. creationism and evolution are both theories but evolution has literally a century of verifiable and observable evidence, whereas creationism was a theory first and uses any gap in scientific understanding to "prove" creationism. fucking regular.

[close]

I sincerely apologize for nitpicking, but creationism isn't a theory. At best it's a hypothesis,

It's not even that, it's a parable in a book of short stories.

[Lenny the Fatface]

whats going down is a 100 percent constitutional so I don't see the big deal

Its not like the world trade is getting replaced with a mosque

[grimcity]

Expand Quote

So that's it then. Muslims are terrorists. Even American ones. Beyond just dictating what building they can and can't get in Manhattan, why don't we ship them into a camp or something?

I mean, I see it now. Muslims are less American than everyone else. Perfect logic. Palinesque.

[close]

ouch!

I can agree to disagree on this one.
However, I always appreciate your perspective all things Politics,skatenerd, etc...

(I'm your bromo)

[grimcity]

Expand Quote

Calling it a mosque is wrong. There's a mosque in it, but it has a pool too, so we all might as well refer to it as an indoor swimming hole.

[close]

Lot's of Mosques have pools in them.  They're called hamams.

...the point being that this is a community center.

I think they have every right to build it.  However, it is of taste on par with American soldiers draping the US flag over statues of Sadam when we were supposed to be "liberators" rather than conquerors.

Is it tasteless because the people that are opening this facility up are terrorists? Please explain.

[dlx111]

I'm really pretty neutral in this whole thing.
I'm just stating that the whole things seems like a bad idea. That's all.
Okay, lets say this thing gets built and is up and running in a year.
How long will it take till one of these right wing nut jobs runs up
in there and starts unloading firearms in the name of "freedom"

I'm sure the aftermath of that
will spark some interesting debate as well
Instead of bringing different people together
I'd imagine that would do the exact opposite
again, I'm just saying that the whole things just smells like a bad idea

I'm aware that my opinion is not popular

thank you thats all i was trying to say to me, if i were a muslim i would have chosen a different spot out of respect. thats all i dont hate muslims i dont hate islam so enough.

[H8R part 4]

maybe a mosque will make that part of the city less of a target?

the really sad part is, if the mosque is built it will be probably be finished before the 9/11 memorial. 
come this september, it'll be 9 years and millions of wasted tax dollars for that sweet hole in the ground that has been there since 2001!  thats what i call milking it. 

[grimcity]

Expand Quote

I'm really pretty neutral in this whole thing.
I'm just stating that the whole things seems like a bad idea. That's all.
Okay, lets say this thing gets built and is up and running in a year.
How long will it take till one of these right wing nut jobs runs up
in there and starts unloading firearms in the name of "freedom"

I'm sure the aftermath of that
will spark some interesting debate as well
Instead of bringing different people together
I'd imagine that would do the exact opposite
again, I'm just saying that the whole things just smells like a bad idea

I'm aware that my opinion is not popular

[close]

thank you thats all i was trying to say to me, if i were a muslim i would have chosen a different spot out of respect. thats all i dont hate muslims i dont hate islam so enough.

Bullshit.

Anyway, if you ever visit NY, see the center, become dismayed at the lack of taste, you can walk one block over to St. Peter's and wash it out of your system or walk a little further and have a beer and hit up a hookah with some cab drivers.

[chuck d]

Expand Quote

I think they have every right to build it.  However, it is of taste on par with American soldiers draping the US flag over statues of Sadam when we were supposed to be "liberators" rather than conquerors.

[close]

Is it tasteless because the people that are opening this facility up are terrorists? Please explain.

I'll try.  When American troops come to Iraq, overthrow their dictator, and then cover a statue of said dictator with an American flag, it may come off as a bad pr move, as it could be read by some in Iraq that American troops are simply there to assume dictatorship.  (even though American soldiers are not dictators)
Likewise, when foreign Islamic jihad troops come to America, take down some buildings that symbolize capitalism, and then American Muslims build a mosque close to where those buildings used to be, it may come off as a bad pr move.  (even though American Muslims are not terrorists)

Anyway, we could argue over taste for days and get nowhere, (i.e. Gip & COTG in any UWTB thread) so we won't.

The bottom line is that taste has nothing to do with legality.  Which means the building should be built.  It also means that if someone is arguing about taste, and someone else is arguing about legality, it makes for a thread that is very frustrating to read.

[grimcity]

We were foreign invaders in Iraq, and we fucked up by putting our flag up because it wasn't the declared intent to conquer the country. Agreed.

The Islamic center is an American building that will cater to US citizens and visitors alike. There is no equivalency.

[chuck d]

Ok well I tried.

[grimcity]

I just don't think we have to pander to the lowest common denominator, those people being the ones who can't separate a religion (with nearly as many flavors as Christianity) with killers... and again, killers who murdered innocent Muslims in New York as well.

On top of that, if we allow and continue to demonize Muslim Americans, we're basically giving the extremists exactly what they want, a nation that openly hates anyone with Islamic leanings. The US is supposed to be better than that.

[chuck d]

I agree.  I never said I was part of the 70%, but I can hear the argument.  Personally, I think any building of worship should be illegal, along with any marriage.  Why do we institutionalize things that are supposed to be most personal to us?

[Narcissus]

I don't trust deeply religious people of any persuasion.

I say let 'em build the fuckin' building, but my gut feeling is that the space should probably be a skate plaza instead.

Well, maybe there'll be some ledges or something over there.

Brothers and sisters, you shall not find peace until you open your hearts and accept Dennis Busenitz as your Lord and saviour.

[kinky john]

I don't trust deeply religious people of any persuasion.

I say let 'em build the fuckin' building, but my gut feeling is that the space should probably be a skate plaza instead.

Amen.

My opinion, its a magnificent gesture, and should be applauded.

[grimcity]

Personally, I think any building of worship should be illegal,

I'm fine with them, but there are some that get away with tax-exempt status that certainly shouldn't.

along with any marriage.  Why do we institutionalize things that are supposed to be most personal to us?

You get good deals on taxes and stuff. But having said that, marriage is what you make it. My wife and I considered ourselves married years before we "technically" were, we went to the Justice of the peace mainly so the folks wouldn't pass on with their kids 'shackin' up," but that's more of a southern thing (I think).

Narcissus: Ok, a skate plaza might actually be sick, but it would probably be attacked even more ferociously. Luckily, skaters have beaten Palin before.