Reply With Quote
LNGR basically horsewhipped Blackjack in one or two posts. He obviously prefers the childish flame war with Blake to the thoughtful, reasoned discussion he claims to be promoting between "good people" who disagree.
Of topical interest:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/op...e.html?_r=1&hp
LNGR basically horsewhipped Blackjack in one or two posts. He obviously prefers the childish flame war with Blake to the thoughtful, reasoned discussion he claims to be promoting between "good people" who disagree.
This has not been a good thread for you, Nancy.
And what exactly would you be referring to? Maybe I missed something in between Nancy's nonsense but what exactly has there been for me to get "horsewhipped" on? My opinion that there are people in opposition that are not racist or Islamaphobic?
Are you in the "everyone-in-opposition-is-a-racist/Islamaphobe" camp?
I'm not.
You missed something in between. You were having too much fun with your silly flame war to notice LNGR's thoughtful response to you.
Maybe so. Admittedly, though the departure in form, this silly little flame war has been fun.
If you know the particular thoughtful response (or if LngrrR wants to re-post it) I'll be glad to respond to it with an equally thoughtful response -- it'd be nice change of pace from Nancy.
It's within the last few pages, if you really care so much.
Not so much but if I've missed something that deserves a genuine response and isn't just more of the ideological divide nonsense (that can't be bridged), I'd have no problem addressing it -- I'm in and out a lot so it's easy to lose track of in these long threads, and I actually like LnGrrrR.
No problem carrying on day after day, page after page with Blake, but no time or inclination to find and respond to a recent post by someone you actually like. Telling.
Well aren't you the sharpsticker.
If you've missed something, there's no time or inclination involved. But I'll go back and see if there was something I feel I haven't addressed in the last 15 pages when I have a chance to read and give a full response -- that's why I was hoping you remembered the actual post. To save me some time and sifting, and to make sure I responded to the particular one you're speaking of.
Thanks for the help, ass.
It has been an entertaining thread for me.This has not been a good thread for you, Nancy.
You have been proven to be an Islamophobe, an illterate and you melt down into troll mode when it doesn't go your way. Not a good thread for you.
Have you asked these people whether forcing the mosque to move might ALSO give terrorists propaganda to work with? That would be the next logical question.
Note: I personally don't think it's a win/win for the terrorists, or I wouldn't be arguing the fact. Do the "good people" you refer to think it's a "win/win" either way? If so, why do they argue the mosque should be moved?
Not approving, and wanting it to be moved, can be mutually exclusive things. I can think that somebody did something in a negative way, but still think they should do it.
Do these good people think the project should remain where it is, despite the "insensitivity" they've generated? (I put insensitivity in quote marks, because the only way it could be considered insensitive is if you conflate radical terrorists with mainstream Muslims, which is pretty obviously stupid. Yes, there are alot of stupid people.)
Would you prefer the term "ignorant" or "uninformed" or "illogical"?
Do these good people realize how offensive it probably is for a Muslim to be grouped with these radical terrorists? What if people were proposing a new Christian church be moved because it was too close to an abortion clinic? (After all, Christians have been known to invoke God's principles when they attack these places.)
Have I ever stated that you don't believe these people are good? Heck, even I've stated that these people might be good; it just does no good saying "They're good" and leaving it at that.
I don't think you quite understand that I am attacking your argument, not you. The two are distinct en ies, are they not? And since you are arguing in place of these "good people" who obviously aren't here, you are their spokesman.
Really? Gandhi was racist. Our Founding Fathers approved of slavery. What about Japanese Internment Camps during WWII? Churchill was all about pushing imperialism. etc etc
If you're eliminating that has irrational views towards a group, or hateful views towards a group, that good category is severely restricted.
The "good people" you keep referring to.
You act like there's some category that certain people can be placed into which makes their actions and beliefs irreproachable. Of course, some people could believe that the community center should be built because they want a place to play hoops. Is that a "right" reason? Probably not. That doesn't change the validity of my argument though.
If you want the mosque to be built there because it stands for tolerance, diversity, etc etc, I absolutely believe it's doing the "right" thing for the "right" reason. Why else would I argue for it?
If you honestly believe that building a mosque there will provide more propaganda than forcing Muslims to build in an area FURTHER from Ground Zero, because they are perceived as less American and therefore not given full religious tolerance, then yes, it's about as crazy. It's also crazy to think that terrorists won't spin it either way, making that argument moot.
You're using what's called Pascal's Wager... which is a logical fallacy. Pascal's Wager goes like this... why not believe in God, since if we're right, we go to Heaven, and if we're wrong, then no harm no foul! If you want to see why it doesn't make sense, check it out on wikipedia.
That's what your above statement is: why not move the mosque, just in case it's used as a negative symbol. But the argument ignores all the consequences that might arise from moving the mosque, brushing them away as if they were lint.
What about the thinking, "If you would've just accepted us buying this property and building it, then this is never even a debate/discussion"? Of course, it's asking alot of people to look at their own thoughts/argument critically as their opponents.
Last edited by LnGrrrR; 09-08-2010 at 02:01 PM.
I respect that you can laugh at yourself, Nancy.It has been an entertaining thread for me.
Have I, Nancy? Can you prove that with any actual facts, Nancy?,You have been proven to be an Islamophobe
Says Nancy, the person still responding to posts aimed at someone else. Says, Nancy, the person who's obviously projecting an image of tolerance for a lack of his own -- the shame just too much to bear.an illterate and you melt down into troll mode when it doesn't go your way.
Oh, and you don't melt down into troll mode. You troll people like yourself because it's fun and the only way to deal with a Nancy. Jolly good times.
A lot of head nodding on my part, LnGrrrR. A lot I find myself in agreement with -- and the first part about asking them to move the mosque at this point is something I have actually brought up, and most agree with me that it could be used for extremist rhetoric as well.Have you asked these people whether forcing the mosque to move might ALSO give terrorists propaganda to work with? That would be the next logical question.
Note: I personally don't think it's a win/win for the terrorists, or I wouldn't be arguing the fact. Do the "good people" you refer to think it's a "win/win" either way? If so, why do they argue the mosque should be moved?
Not approving, and wanting it to be moved, can be mutually exclusive things. I can think that somebody did something in a negative way, but still think they should do it.
Do these good people think the project should remain where it is, despite the "insensitivity" they've generated? (I put insensitivity in quote marks, because the only way it could be considered insensitive is if you conflate radical terrorists with mainstream Muslims, which is pretty obviously stupid. Yes, there are alot of stupid people.)
Would you prefer the term "ignorant" or "uninformed" or "illogical"?
Do these good people realize how offensive it probably is for a Muslim to be grouped with these radical terrorists? What if people were proposing a new Christian church be moved because it was too close to an abortion clinic? (After all, Christians have been known to invoke God's principles when they attack these places.)
Have I ever stated that you don't believe these people are good? Heck, even I've stated that these people might be good; it just does no good saying "They're good" and leaving it at that.
I don't think you quite understand that I am attacking your argument, not you. The two are distinct en ies, are they not? And since you are arguing in place of these "good people" who obviously aren't here, you are their spokesman.
Really? Gandhi was racist. Our Founding Fathers approved of slavery. What about Japanese Internment Camps during WWII? Churchill was all about pushing imperialism. etc etc
If you're eliminating that has irrational views towards a group, or hateful views towards a group, that good category is severely restricted.
The "good people" you keep referring to.
You act like there's some category that certain people can be placed into which makes their actions and beliefs irreproachable. Of course, some people could believe that the community center should be built because they want a place to play hoops. Is that a "right" reason? Probably not. That doesn't change the validity of my argument though.
If you want the mosque to be built there because it stands for tolerance, diversity, etc etc, I absolutely believe it's doing the "right" thing for the "right" reason. Why else would I argue for it?
If you honestly believe that building a mosque there will provide more propaganda than forcing Muslims to build in an area FURTHER from Ground Zero, because they are perceived as less American and therefore not given full religious tolerance, then yes, it's about as crazy. It's also crazy to think that terrorists won't spin it either way, making that argument moot.
You're using what's called Pascal's Wager... which is a logical fallacy. Pascal's Wager goes like this... why not believe in God, since if we're right, we go to Heaven, and if we're wrong, then no harm no foul! If you want to see why it doesn't make sense, check it out on wikipedia.
That's what your above statement is: why not move the mosque, just in case it's used as a negative symbol. But the argument ignores all the consequences that might arise from moving the mosque, brushing them away as if they were lint.
What about the thinking, "If you would've just accepted us buying this property and building it, then this is never even a debate/discussion"? Of course, it's asking alot of people to look at their own thoughts/argument critically as their opponents.
To touch on a couple of other points, I don't believe our Founding Fathers or Ghandi would be perceived or actually be the same type of people -- with regards to what you mentioned -- had they been here in the present. It's a different time and a different place. We're all a product of our surroundings and environment, to some degree, and the type of things being done, felt and said back then, were the norm for their day -- as reprehensible of some of that "norm" was back then.
If you're a person in present day that spews hate with racist rhetoric and makes a point of practicing intolerant/ignorant actions, it's just a whole different animal. There's just no way of saying someone's "good" if they're harboring those kinds of feelings and beliefs. So while I understand where you're coming from, I just can't draw that analogy. Not as it pertains to my view on this particular topic.
The only thing that's become amusing from your posts is the condescension I'm reading when it comes to "good people" or whatnot. I just have a hard time understanding the fervor in which a pretty damn benign point of view and OP has become as contentious as this.
Simply stated (as well as possible), the debates with my friends and family came to fruition once this whole story became the hot-button issue it is now. So what happened before then or how much they really cared before then, I couldn't really tell you. And that makes a difference in this:
When you say Islamic extremists will or could stand to gain any kind of recruiting tool or propaganda to further their cause now -- whether it be from building it, not building it or moving it -- it's probably a pretty safe bet to say that not one -- but all three -- of those things will or probably could. Once this issue became the hot topic it did it was inevitable it'd find its way into and extremist talking point in some way or fashion. That's my opinion, at least (and I know it's shared by many in and out of the "know"). So it's almost if we're arguing from two different plains.
I simply called people that know nothing but talking points and look to dismiss any-and-all opposition as racists or bigots at the drop of a hat, lemmings. That's all I said. I believe them to be ignorant people and counterproductive to getting things -- the "right" things -- done. I'm not sure how anyone can honestly disagree with that if they're not one themselves (and that's directed at you, LnGrrrR, or anyone else that doesn't recognize those actions as their own -- I feel almost forced to mention that given Nancy's predilection to respond and read into posts not aimed at him).
Bottom line, when this topic was broached, it was a HUGE story. That changes things. And the dissenting views I've mostly come across were simply from a resentment that Park51 didn't err on the side of caution when it came to this project from the start. No matter what happens from this point moving forward, that resentment will be there -- when it comes to the those that lost their lives on 9-11 and those that could potentially lose their lives at the hands of the same kind of extremists, it's a pretty sensitive topic. Park51 is perceived to have taken an absolutely unnecessary risk deciding to build near Ground Zero.
That's not a racist or intolerant view, IMO. In reality, it's hard not to say deciding to build there wasn't taking some kind of unnecessary risk or not erring on the side of caution. The motives of the people I've defended keep coming into question, but why not the motives of those that decided to build there in the first place -- was that the most sensitive and erring-on-the-side-of-caution-move they could have done? I'd be disingenuous saying I believe so.
I just happen to believe you can't allow extenuating cir stances like that to dictate the way you do business and run your country/life. You do the "right" things -- even when it's not convenient -- and you build consensus whenever possible to make sure the "right" things get done -- you don't turn off the other side of an argument by shouting racist and bigot at the first or most recent contention.
The mosque isn't up for a vote, last I checked. And I simply don't have a problem with the kind of dissent I've tried to relay. Is that really all that outlandish of a take? (And I know you're not attacking me, but the argument, LnGrrrR.)
If it's the case that it would be used for extremist rhetoric in either situation, then that defeats the purpose of that argument, right? Do the people who acknowledge that it could be used as propaganda either way recognize this fact, and then alter their beliefs/views accordingly? Or do they just come up with new reasons to say the mosque should be moved?
Yes, but people today who believe these irrational and/or hateful thoughts are as much a product of their surroundings/environments/etc as the Founding Fathers/Gandhi/etc. That's why they can still be good people but have blind spots, because they were raised that way, are ignorant, doesn't recognize their own logical fallacies, or any other number of things. That doesn't mean they're bad people.
Do you not believe that someone can have racist thoughts without spewing hate? I'll give you an example... people who think Asians are bad drivers. That's racism, but it doesn't mean the person is out there on the sidewalk asking for another Tianamen Square Massacre. Ya dig?
Because the "good people" are a stand-in. They obviously can not answer for themselves on this message board, and so you fill in for them. When you say, "I believe as you do, but my friends think X"... well, that doesn't do much good for the purposes of this debate, does it? It also assumes that 1) they are good people, which isn't necessarily established and 2) assumes those good people, according to your definition, are relatively free from bias, which definitely isn't established either. Can you see now why I have an issue with these "good people"?
It's on you to question the "good people" that you know, and ask them why they hold these beliefs, as I certainly can't do it.
Here's where your "good people" become problematic. Because, as you stated above, you don't think "good people" can be biased/racist in this day and age. Because you think this, you automatically disqualify "good people" from racism because they're not overtly racist.
What I feel though, is that good people CAN have bias/racism, and it can color their views. You've stated before that these good people have agreed that whether the mosque moves or not, terrorists and anti-American supporters will spin it either way.
Having admitted this, logically, if that is the only criteria that one is using to believe that the mosque should be moved, then they no longer have a logical impetus to support the idea that the mosque should be moved. Follow me?
I think you'll find that most of your "good people" will find a NEW reason to want to move the mosque. They can't answer this, of course, but you should try to ask some of them and see if they rewire their arguments to some new topic.
Here's the thing though... why would this have to err on the side of caution if it WASN'T a big deal? You're saying that they should have predicted in advance that the building of this mosque was a big deal, but the plans have been in process for awhile. Heck, the wife of one of the owners even went on the Laura Ingraham show. It wasn't until conservatives realized they could conflate "radical terrorists" with "Muslims in NY city" that it blew out of proportion.
And why is that perception there? Because people conflate "Muslim" with "radical terrorist". Again, do we think that churches shouldn't be built near abortion clinics? Of course not, because it's much more acceptable to stereotype/diminish Muslims as the dreaded "other".
See the conflation? Why should the builders be sensitive about building a mosque for Muslims? Because, in your eyes and many others, SOME crazy Muslims were responsible for 9/11. Do the majority of Muslims support their actions? Of course not. And yet, because they pray to a God that the majority of our country doesn't, they are lumped together and all looked at in su ion. The same happens for minorities... all Mexicans are suspected of being illegal immigrants, blacks cause more crimes, etc etc.
But it's not simply about the mosque at this point. It's about religious tolerance, diversity, etc etc. And everyone arguing whether the mosque SHOULD be built there or not is debating different viewpoints, and using the mosque as a proxy.
I do have a problem with it, personally. People who want the mosque to move provide no VALID REASONING for their arguments... which indicates that their argument is off pure emotional reasoning. What emotion would cause someone to support the movement of a mosque? Fear that terrorists will use it as propaganda. Fear of the other. Etc etc.
There are lots of "good people" around the nation that have this poor logic running through their head, and while they may not know it, the collective "otherization" of Muslim peoples in America damages our reputation greatly. The movement of a mosque is just bricks and mortar on its face, but to the outside world, it's a battle to see if America will practice what it preaches (religious tolerance), or whether it will force the others to move to a more "acceptable" area. Can't have Muslims too close to the Ground Zero site now, can we?
I am very much laughing at you, your Islamophobia, and your "good people friends".I respect that you can laugh at yourself, Nancy.
Yes, pussy:Have I, Nancy? Can you prove that with any actual facts, Nancy?
You are clearly afraid.
I troll people like myself? That makes no sense.Oh, and you don't melt down into troll mode. You troll people like yourself because it's fun and the only way to deal with a Nancy. Jolly good times.
Instead of getting shorter and to the point, your posts are getting longer and even more redundant.
And now that LnGrrrR is horsewhipping your already red ass, I don't believe you are having a jolly good time.
Why is that fear? Why not pragmatism? After all, there are already Muslims abroad -- who disregard the Imam's claim -- and see it as a Victory Mosque.
It's an observation, not a fear. I don't think Imam Rauf can prevent radical Muslims from co-opting his "interfaith bridge-building" in an effort to radicalize the place and make it what they wish it to be.
So it's resignation to fear.
Nice.
Pussy.
Pragmatism?
Now that these "Muslims abroad" have declared victory with this mosque, what do you believe will be their next practical step?
So you have observed extremists using this mosque as propaganda?It's an observation, not a fear.
What are you afraid that these extremists might do?
So you are afraid of radical Muslims co-opting the building.I don't think Imam Rauf can prevent radical Muslims from co-opting his "interfaith bridge-building" in an effort to radicalize the place and make it what they wish it to be.
Is this fear based on a real observation?
If so, please provide the date, time and place this event occurred.
Thanks.
Still waiting for Blackjack to address the points made by a poster he allegedly likes. So far he's ducked LNGR almost completely. All he did was repeat himself again.
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-09-2010 at 06:54 AM.
Just back click a few pages. Your multiquoting of Blake, surely, has acquainted you with the procedure....that's why I was hoping you remembered the actual post. To save me some time and sifting, and to make sure I responded to the particular one you're speaking of.
Thanks for the help, ass.
Blackjack clearly holds his own in a name calling contest but just as clearly -- so far -- prefers to ignore reasoned argumentation from disputants of goodwill who already enjoy his (avowed) affection.
I say this in spite of Blackjack's apparent response to LNGR. It is a non-response IMO. It's more like stubborn repe ion than an actual reply.
Much like his colloquy with Blake.
(burp)
Blackjack not only does not respect those who disagree with him, he barely even acknowledges them. He just repeats himself over and over again, like his main adversary in this thread.
For evidence of this opinion, just back click through the last 10 pages or so.
Disclosure: I am mildly biased in favor of the broader point Blackjack seems to be making over and over again. Irrationality isn't necessarily a moral or ethical fault.
But I don't believe Blackjack's bs on this point.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
