The last refuge of a liberal

[admiralsnackbar]

The acts of 9-11 were perpetrated by terrorists. But they weren't lone gunmen. They had an affiliation and cause -- they have friends and they're still out there. To suggest that notion is a "strawman" is a slap-in-the-face to common sense.

I don't think it's a strawman as much as an inaccurate generalization like the one I wrote about in the above post. The terrorists were united by a common ideology, but said ideology is as commensurate with mainstream Islam as Fred Phelps' clan of creeps is with mainstream Babtist Christianity. Extremism, by definition, is not to be confused with the mainstream.

Is it really that hard to believe some good-hearted Americans would find this community center to be objectional? Would they ALL have to be racists or people that should be marginalized because they oppose the community center?

Does it matter what kind of American believes what he/she does? It only matters that to be Americans, we must obey a code of conduct. And again, if a reasonable argument can be made for wanting to marginalize an equally American community, great -- but nobody in this thread has yet made a reasonable case for the denial of privileges to Americans of a different faith (with, granted, unsavory psychological associations) than themselves.

Without this reasonable case made, I don't see how you get around racism, or Islamophobia, or what have you. These are loaded words with their own decisively pejorative connotations, but if we're honest with ourselves, what else could we be talking about when we want to deny our fellow citizens rights and comforts we ourselves enjoy without a reason we can articulate?

If prejudice is believing things about a group of people before having met them individually or learning about their group diversity, then sorry, but some of the people we're discussing are prejudiced. If phobias are irrational fears that distort our normal behavior for unknown reasons, why is it inaccurate to describe somebody as phobic when he regards a group of people he has no reason to distrust with abnormal su ion or as deserving of abridged rights? It doesn't make the bigot or the phobic a bad or hateful person, just an unreasonable one, because they ultimately can't defend their actions, only articulate their stereotypes or anxieties.

If you can give an example of a credible argument for denying the Muslims their Community Center that a good-hearted American might employ, I'm all ears. But it honestly just sounds like you're playing apologist because it offends your sensibilities that prejudice and fear could be omnipresent. Pardon the didactic obviousness, but prejudice doesn't have to wear a white hood or jackboots (these are our prejudicial stereotypes of bigotry and xenophobia).

There's a great quote by Hannah Arendt talking about Nazi Germany and the final solution... she described it as "the banality of evil." In other words, evil doesn't look like Snidely Whiplash -- it looks like us.

[admiralsnackbar]

The analogy doesn't suggest you ostracize me for having a pit bull. It asks the question if your actions as a parent are any different than before I moved in and if so does that classify you as a dog hater?

But again -- I know what pitbulls have been bred for over the centuries, and I have a large body of evidence from which to draw from to confirm any apprehensions about somebody bringing a threat into the sphere of my children's life. Because I can make a reasonable argument against a pitbull sharing living space with me and my family, it isn't a phobia or an action predicated on prejudice. At worst, it's a sound opinion.

I have no such body of knowledge to justify similar concerns were we to replace the pitbull with a Muslim. Not only are Muslims human (and, as such, biologically diverse and not "bred" for a specific task -- not to mention as capable of critical thought, individuality, and judgment as you or I), but they also belong to a religion which has hundreds if not thousands of sects, movements, denominations, hermeneutic philosophies etc.

[rjv]

The analogy doesn't suggest you ostracize me for having a pit bull. It asks the question if your actions as a parent are any different than before I moved in and if so does that classify you as a dog hater?

this is just an appeal to emotion disguised as analogy. as admiral pointed out, it's far too obtuse and general to really be used as an effective analogy and the use of a parents concern for a child in this case certainly dominates the scenario. also, in this case, the parents can not forbid the neighbors from having the dog which is really more the problem that your analogy would want to address.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I just find it hilarious that we've now reached a point where comparing a muslim to a ing pitbull passes as a valid argument... and when I say hilarious I mean really. ing. sad.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I don't think it's a strawman as much as an inaccurate generalization like the one I wrote about in the above post. The terrorists were united by a common ideology, but said ideology is as commensurate with mainstream Islam as Fred Phelps' clan of creeps is with mainstream Babtist Christianity. Extremism, by definition, is not to be confused with the mainstream.
Does it matter what kind of American believes what he/she does? It only matters that to be Americans, we must obey a code of conduct. And again, if a reasonable argument can be made for wanting to marginalize an equally American community, great -- but nobody in this thread has yet made a reasonable case for the denial of privileges to Americans of a different faith (with, granted, unsavory psychological associations) than themselves.

Without this reasonable case made, I don't see how you get around racism, or Islamophobia, or what have you. These are loaded words with their own decisively pejorative connotations, but if we're honest with ourselves, what else could we be talking about when we want to deny our fellow citizens rights and comforts we ourselves enjoy without a reason we can articulate?

If prejudice is believing things about a group of people before having met them individually or learning about their group diversity, then sorry, but some of the people we're discussing are prejudiced. If phobias are irrational fears that distort our normal behavior for unknown reasons, why is it inaccurate to describe somebody as phobic when he regards a group of people he has no reason to distrust with abnormal su ion or as deserving of abridged rights? It doesn't make the bigot or the phobic a bad or hateful person, just an unreasonable one, because they ultimately can't defend their actions, only articulate their stereotypes or anxieties.

If you can give an example of a credible argument for denying the Muslims their Community Center that a good-hearted American might employ, I'm all ears. But it honestly just sounds like you're playing apologist because it offends your sensibilities that prejudice and fear could be omnipresent. Pardon the didactic obviousness, but prejudice doesn't have to wear a white hood or jackboots (these are our prejudicial stereotypes of bigotry and xenophobia).

There's a great quote by Hannah Arendt talking about Nazi Germany and the final solution... she described it as "the banality of evil." In other words, evil doesn't look like Snidely Whiplash -- it looks like us.

Nicely put

[boutons_deux]

"the banality of evil."

I think we'll look back at the VRWC period which got into full-swing with diseased, ridiculed St Ronnie getting elected, his cutting taxes on wealthy/himself, laffer curves, voodoo economics, raising SocSec taxes, then Repugs went really nasty with Willie Horton, then full blown insanity with the 1994 mid-terms, the witch-hunting and destruction of Clinton's presidency, the criminality of dubya and head's Reign of Error, and the non-stop bullying, intimidation, and obstructionism of the Repugs, the Tea baggin assholes, Limbaugh, BecKKK, pitbull , Fox Repug Propaganda channel, the massive, 24x7, right-wing hate-media, the xenophobia, "Christian" supremacist theocrats, anti-science and anti-rationality of Bible-thumpers, the militarization of municipal police, the outright non-stop lying by Repugs and their enablers, the proven criminality, fraud, predations of Wall St. and the unrestrained growth of the financial sector, an economy being driven by self-inflicted diseases, stagnant real incomes for the lower 95%, insanely growing economic inequaltiy.

This isn't "normal". It's perverse, it's totally ed up. America, fat, dumb, enslaved, and getting sicker and poorer by the day.

[DarrinS]

I just find it hilarious that we've now reached a point where comparing a muslim to a ing pitbull passes as a valid argument... and when I say hilarious I mean really. ing. sad.

Muslim terrorists have killed FAR more people than pit bulls.

[rjv]

Muslim terrorists have killed FAR more people than pit bulls.

so have Christian terrorists.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Muslim terrorists have killed FAR more people than pit bulls.

is that supposed to be a joke??

[DarrinS]

so have Christian terrorists.

Which ones are those?

[DarrinS]

is that supposed to be a joke??

Is it factually inaccurate?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Is it factually inaccurate?

are all muslims terrorists?

[rjv]

Which ones are those?

well you can start in nothern ireland and then go from there. you can also buy a globe and some history books while you're at it.

[boutons_deux]

"nothern ireland"

"the troubles" had nothing to do with Catholic vs Protestant. It was all about extortion, gangsterism, protection money, etc. Religious conflict was the pretext, the charade hiding the criminality.

[DarrinS]

are all muslims terrorists?

No one thinks this, so it's pretty stupid to keep asking it.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

No one thinks this, so it's pretty stupid to keep asking it.

its what you keep implying, isn't it?

Me: I can't believe we're down to comparing muslims to pitbulls.

You: Muslim terrorists have killed more than pitbulls.

People say muslim, you say terrorist.

If that's not what you're implying then please, go ahead and explain yourself once and for all.

[DarrinS]

its what you keep implying, isn't it?

Me: I can't believe we're down to comparing muslims to pitbulls.

You: Muslim terrorists have killed more than pitbulls.

People say muslim, you say terrorist.

If that's not what you're implying then please, go ahead and explain yourself once and for all.

Did I say "Mulsims killed" or "Muslim terrorists killed"?


It's kind of subtle, but there is a difference.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Did I say "Mulsims killed" or "Muslim terrorists killed"?


It's kind of subtle, but there is a difference.

ah so basically you're saying you believe Mikesatx original analogy was equating terrorists to pitbulls, not Muslims in general?

to which I would have to call bull , having read this post from you

Say you board an aircraft and notice several middle eastern men board the aircraft after you. If you do a double-take or in any way give them more scrutiny than any other passenger, are you an Islamophobe? Or, do you just have common sense based on knowledge of the past 40 years?

and then Mikesatx says this

I just moved in next door to you and your family with my pit bull. You don't know more than the average person about pit bulls but you have seen and heard many stories of their brutality. You don't like it and you are concerned for the welfare of your kids as they are separated from my dog by an old wood fence. Do you view it as its just a dog? Do you keep a closer eye on your kids and if so does that mean you hate dogs or are a cynophobe (fear of dogs)?

now you sit there and tell me you weren't trying to make the same ing point. To which I will add that you made no mention of terrorism in that first analogy of yours either, but you sure implied the out of it.

Seriously, I know I've asked this before but who do you think you're fooling?

[clambake]

"nothern ireland"

"the troubles" had nothing to do with Catholic vs Protestant. It was all about extortion, gangsterism, protection money, etc. Religious conflict was the pretext, the charade hiding the criminality.

pretty close, bou.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I'm not entirely sure I'm not being trolled right now. It would be DarrinS only saving grace.

[DarrinS]

now you sit there and tell me you weren't trying to make the same ing point. To which I will add that you made no mention of terrorism in that first analogy of yours either, but you sure implied the out of it.

Seriously, I know I've asked this before but who do you think you're fooling?

Is English your first language?


NO, NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORIST, BUT ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS.


Before some lib has a hissy fit and mentions the IRA -- when I say terrorist, I mean those that have been actively attacking the US or US interests for the past 40 years.

[ChumpDumper]

NO, NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORIST, BUT ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS.

[Spurminator]

There it is.

[ChumpDumper]

He should make that his sig.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Is English your first language?


NO, NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORIST, BUT ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS.


Before some lib has a hissy fit and mentions the IRA -- when I say terrorist, I mean those that have been actively attacking the US or US interests for the past 40 years.

I'm not even going to try and explain how much ignorance it takes to make the statement you just made, and since it has very little to do with my original question I'd say its for the better.

Now, do you or do you not agree with Mikesatx analogy between a pitbull and a Muslim? and don't bring that bull about Muslim terrorism, that's is not what he was referring to.