The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
9/11/01
I am just letting all of you know that on the 11th of next month is coming up soon meaning 9/11/01. I will never forget that day and my prayers goes out to those who died on that horific day. Also Firefighter angels watches over them every day and night. I again pray for our troops who are fighting over there every day.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
"The mosque issue is that when making such a comparison, you really are in fact lumping ALL Muslims as terrorists by using that analogy. You are saying that because the terrorists were radical Islamic followers that this mosque is subscribing to the same ideals. It is your analogy. The very simple little fact remains that JApan is a seperate country....the people wanting this mosque are AMERICANS who happen to be Muslim. Your analogy just doesn't fit."
John, that is completely bogus. First, show me where I've said that all Muslims are terrorists. You can't, because I haven't said that anywhere, nor do I believe it. Your statement is a straw man logical fallacy, because you are responding to something that YOU said as if I had said it.
You are also generalizing my position with the positions of others that I have not taken nor supported.
"You are saying that because the terrorists were radical Islamic followers that this mosque is subscribing to the same ideals."
No, John, I'm not. In fact, I've clearly said that not all Muslims are extremists, just as not all of the Japanese were supporters of the Pearl Harbor attacks. Once again, that is a straw man logical fallacy, and ergo, not logical. Did you actually read what I said???
I've never said - anywhere - that the Muslims don't have the right to build their mosque at Ground Zero. I've clearly said that the issue with me is insensitivity, not rights. That makes your reference to my previous position on the Charleston displays a non sequitur - I'm not talking about "rights'.
I insist on the Pearl Harbor analolgy - which is both accurate and pertinent - because in the realm of sensitivity, the two things are closely related. The nationality or religion of the groups don't matter, and are in fact, an artificial distinction, as I've already pointed out. While nationality and religion are different things, the Japanese and the Muslims have cultures that are different than the cultures of 1941 Honolulu or 2010 NYC. In terms of cultural differences, once again, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 share several commonalities. Sneak attacks, intent to kill lots of Americans, intent to disable parts of our national security and economy, intent to increase the power of that cultural group at the expense of American power, a perceived victory of the attacker's cultural values over American cultural values - all are commonalities. The Japanese could easily purchase land to build a memorial to their WW II dead near Pearl Harbor. They have chosen to avoid that because it is insensitive. The Muslims who want to build overlooking Ground Zero have not displayed the saem sensitivity.
"Majority of posts are against this mosque because of fear, ignorance or personal emotion, yet from many so called patriots who don't see the simple fact these freedoms are guaranteed."
So what. My posts have nothing to do with fear, ignorance, or personal emotion. They were exclusive to sensitivity. If you want to argue with the people who posted from those motivations, feel free to do so. However, when you generalize those emotions, fears, or ignorance to me, you once again are engaging in logical fallacies.
Feel free to respond to something that I actually said any time you wish. When you put words in my mouth or generalize my position with other positions which I clearly did not take, I'll continue to point it out.
-
-
You missed a couple of important points...
1) Home schooling is nothing like a madrassah. It is family schooling, not a school where those kids will be socialized with others of like beliefs, which in turn creates peer pressure for large groups to conform. A couple of kids being home-schooled by mom or dad isn't a large group or vulnerable to peer pressure, any way you slice it.
2) Parochial schools don't teach violence as an acceptable way to promote their values. We don't stone alleged adulterers here, for example. There is no modern-day Christian equivalent to jihad. Christians have no equivalent to fatwas, many of which do indeed espouse violence against those who won't submit to sharia law.
Comparing a Christian's right to vote his/her conscience and to encourage others to do the same to Muslim declarations of jihad, stoning of adulterers, and fatwas encouraging murder is not an apples-to-oranges comparison, it is more like a strawberries-to-beefsteak comparison.
"Remember this, once before we allowed American born citizens to be imprisoned because of who their parents were and where they came from and their property confiscated, all in violation of their constitutional rights, because it was 'easier' and because ignorance always breeds prejudice and prejudice always breeds fear. And fear always trumps individual rights."
That's bogus. No one is calling for American citizens to be imprisoned for any reason, let alone their parentage. Claiming that is a straw man argument - no one except you brought that up.
Ignorance does not "always" breed prejudice. It only takes one exception to disprove that claim, while the onus of proof is on the claimant. Good luck proving that one.
Prejudice does not always breed fear. Sometimes it breeds dislike, sometimes it breeds nothing at all, and sometimes ignorance is simply being unaware that the other culture even exists.
Fear does not always trump individual rights. There are fears that have nothing to do with individuals, for starters. Crime is another example. The fact that many people are afraid of criminals hasn't changed the fact that the perp's rights are usually protected, even at the expense of the victims' rights.
"Always"is a long, long time with a need for 100% compliance to be accurate.
Good luck with the proof there - I'll be periodically checking my calendar watch to see how you are doing.
And frankly, Jack, your conspiracy theories sound evenlooniermore far-fetched than the people who espouse the beliefs about the mosque that you cited above.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Ben,
"Most people..." What? What are you referring to?
I made no comment about the percentage of people in NYC regarding the mosque, I believe it was someone else.
-
-
No, Jack, McCain's statement is not specious.
The point is that Christians frequently and publically get taken to task for alleged insensitivity to people with other beliefs whether by other religions or by the irreligous. There are plenty of examples on FFN, for example.
Asking for that to be a two-way street is not only NOT specious, it should be expected by anyone with a basic sense of fairness.
-
-
Jack, The exact quote seems to have disappeared with the deleted parts of this thread. It may have been another poster's comment, and if so, I apologize.
However, you did say "Ben, you really should stop saying it's about sensitivity. Everyone knows it's about muslims."
That is much the same thing, and since I know for a fact that it's not "about muslims" and that in my case, it is in fact about sensitivity, then your claim of "everyone" is also demonstrably not accurate.
I also noticed that at least four FFN members including you refuse to discuss the lack of sensitivity on the part of the mosque's proponents and try to insist that the issue is really about something else.
Why can't you just debate the sensitivity issue on the merits? Is it because it is likely that the merits do indeed indicate insensitivity on the part of the mosque's builders?
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
First, show me where I've said that all Muslims are terrorists. You can't, because I haven't said that anywhere, nor do I believe it.
I've clearly said that not all Muslims are extremists, just as not all of the Japanese were supporters of the Pearl Harbor attacks
I stated because of the analogy you are using, you are basically then saying all Muslims are terrorist. The fact remains Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are seperate incidents. Your analogy of Japan wanting to erect some type of shrine, memorial, etc at Pearl doesn't fit. Japan is a seperate country and has NO rights to do anything here in America. However, this mosque and group ARE Americans, and thus do have those rights. That is clearly the difference.
You keep insisting on this analogy of Japan with Pearl Harbor and this. There IS a difference. The difference is Japan was a seperate country which attacked us. 9/11 was radical Islamic terrorists. Problem with the analogy is that the mosque here is being built by Americans who happen to be Muslim. It is that simple.
You further go on and say this:
the Japanese and the Muslims have cultures that are different than the cultures of 1941 Honolulu or 2010 NYC. In terms of cultural differences, once again, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 share several commonalities. Sneak attacks, intent to kill lots of Americans, intent to disable parts of our national security and economy, intent to increase the power of that cultural group at the expense of American power, a perceived victory of the attacker's cultural values over American cultural values - all are commonalities
The Muslims Ben, Really, the Muslims....how did you just state that you never said all Muslims are terrorists? Seems to me as you stated it right there, in your own words.
Problem is Ben, there are many Americans who happen to be Muslim, yet do not subscribe to the ideals as you have stated here. How will you now defend as never saying this? How is this not lumping all Muslims together?
My posts have nothing to do with fear, ignorance, or personal emotion. They were exclusive to sensitivity
Yet, you have no problem defending the right to display a Nativity or Christmas decorations on public property yet, don't seem to be concerned about the "sensitivities" of other people. So now that this is another religion, worshipping how they want in a location they wish, it is now insensitive.
-
-
Ben,
I see you now have free time on your hands.
Home schooling for many is a way of keeping their kids out of public school so as not to be influenced by unacceptable attitudes, behaviors and thoughts. You make the argument that it's only moms and dads and that may be true, but in a small percentage. Many -if not most- of the home schoolers are such so as to keep them away from the perceived 'immorality' in public schools.
I see you're using straw arguments, non-sequiturs and logical fallacies. Show me where I said parochial schools teach violence? I didn't even allude to it and for you to make such a statement could easily imply to others that I had.
Modern day equivalent to jihad, no. A christian version of it is far more subtle. Infiltrate politics at all levels, influence laws and lawmakers, and effect changes that will make this country a 'christian nation'. Jihad? Maybe not, but just as insidious and just as wrong, although without the terrorist overtones.
Ironically enough, you are right about the difference between christians voting and islamic farwahs. Many of the ultra conservative right wingers are equally conservative christians who oppose gay rights/marriage, abortion, teaching evolution and other of their 'concerns'. Many would like to change laws to reflect those values and fables in the old testament (but only those that suit their fancy.) Acceptable ones, such as divorce, or eating shell fish or pork are ignored as they have no presumed present relevance. But otherwise, christians are working to effect their watered down version of a fatwah. Texas and text books is an example. They consistently attempt to include ID in them as a way of pushing their religious agenda. Although I suppose that so long as they don't advocate violence you see nothing wrong with it. [But how then, do you explain good, god fearing christians bombing abortion centers and killing abortion doctors? And I believe it was a christian who bomber the Murrah building, but then, I'm sure all these are just anomalies and not any indication of some christian fatwah.]
Ben, don't put your own spin on my words. I never said anyone was suggesting imprisoning anyone, I only referenced the japanese internment camps as a way of showing how people's fear can lead to unconstitutional imprisonment and loss of rights.
The only strawman argument there is the one you made. You generally seem to be more careful than that.
Now you are just parsing my every word and attempting to argue semantics. Fear does too trump rights. Look at the Patriot Act. In it a native born american can have their citizenship taken away. That is just not possible. And crime tends to be a local issue and is dealt with on that level. And yet, local or otherwise, when people are afraid, they are willing to abrogate rights for 'safety'. But you inject another non-sequitur, I never talked about (local) crime or criminals, the comment was in the context of muslims and terrorism. This is what happens when you take comments out of context and then try to apply it to another discussion. Clearly my point was that people (who by and large) are indeed ignorant, are constantly being feed 'news' and opinion that suggest that terrorists are everywhere. As such these people's knee jerk reaction is to demand greater safeguards, ever IF it restricts rights. Let's face it, in their minds so long as THEY don't look middle eastern they most likely won't be affected.
What about "always"? In what context did I use it. Was it the one about "fear always trumps individual rights." Or was their another one. Man you really are parsing my comments. But if the best you can do is to challenge a off hand, turn of phrase comment like that and then dismiss it with an equally off hand comment, so be it.
If you're referring to my comment about christian law schools and the christian right's efforts to make this a christian nation, they aren't conspiracy theories, nor necessarily is the one about christians wanting armaggedon. I'll look for the links and get them to you. Of course, the armaggedon one (I fervently hope) is nonsense but then, with those far right christians anything is possible. You know, like killing and bombing. Even without an official jihad. [Frankly, my conspiracy theories are no moreloonythan bible stories or beliefs. I guess it's all about what you choose to believe in.]
In reading your posts, and to whom you bother to respond (yeah, yeah, I know, I have no right to tell you who or when to respond) but still, you only counter those arguments you have a strong feeling for, which is (seemingly) only those that very closely mesh with that of the right/far right. Those that are against the mosque (in this case) because they happen to be "sensitive" and the rest of us are not. Really, you really expect me to buy that nonsense? Your political and religious views are evident, as are mine. We can only agree to disagree although I'm pretty sure I haven't heard the last of this.
P.s. getting quieter there now that summer's almost over and the tourists have left?
-
-
Ben,
Even your statement is specious. It seems on the whole to be logical but upon further review, it's used ONLY to support anti-muslim feelings.
Sorry but here the issue is do they have the right to build? The answer was yes. It's not about the poor christians who take a beating, it's about being allowed to do something that is legally allowed, in this case, build their building. The christian thing is only because so many of them tend to be so vehemently anti-anything not christian.
And since you want to bring up christians and their sensitivity, why are they SO insensitive about gay rights, same-sex marriage and the right to individually choose to have or not have an abortion, or teaching contraception in schools, or evolution?
Straw man argument again, Ben. It's a specious argument because it sounds good but the reality is that it's just another wedge issue thrown up by the right to further polemics and partisanship.
-
-
Jack, there were no straw arguments on my part, and you know it.
For example, the crime example was one that I clearly injected as an analogy and nowhere did I attribute it to you.
As for parsing your comments - if you said it, then it's ripe for parsing. "Those that are against the mosque (in this case) because they happen to be "sensitive" and the rest of us are not. Really, you really expect me to buy that nonsense?"
That's another example of your straw men, Jack. I didn't make comments about what anyone else believes, but when you generalize those beliefs to me in a conversation with me, using things that I clearly did not say but for which you are attributing some other meaning than what I said, you can use that argument for a scarecrow.
I don't care if you believe what I state or not, but when you generalize my comments with what other people believe, then those are not logical arguments.
My comments about sensitivity were not about the sensitivity of the people who don't want the mosque at Ground Zero, it was about the insensitivity of those who propose putting it there. When you discuss anything else, you're missing the point.
"Really, you really expect me to buy that nonsense." Jack, that's another straw man, since nowhere did I say what you allege.
And Jack, why in the world would I want to counter things for which I don't have a strong feeling? That frankly makes no sense. I could waste everyone's time and FFN's bandwidth vaguely discussion things about which I'm apathetic, I don't choose to waste my time or FFN's bandwidth in that manner.
-
-
Ben,
It was not me that made those statements. In fact a recent poll claims that 52% of new yorkers are against the mosque. Not that I lend a lot of credence to that poll or polls in general.
Based on comments in FFN and comments elsewhere I find it difficult (if not impossible) to believe that the majority of the people that are saying it's about sensitivity are not anti-muslim. It's just to tea party-ish and barking at town hall meetings to be anything other than a red herring and a wedge issue.
Just because YOU say my comment is demonstrably not accurate (about it being muslims) doesn't in any way disprove it. It's really just YOUR own demonstrably unprovable statement to the contrary. To wit, terrorist attacked NYC, they were all muslim, muslims want to build a community center (with a mosque, not, inaccurately only a mosque...NOT a fine point here, it's consistently being called a mosque to rally the troops), the issue at hand is that the builders of this proposed building happen to muslims. So the logical conclusion is that it IS indeed about muslims. That is my proof to my argument, what is yours? Sensitivity? By whom? Towards whom? Muslims! So no matter how you cut it the issue IS about muslims. You (and others) are just trying to cover it up as you all being "sensitive" to the issues, which is a lot like trying to polish a turd, if you ask me.
That at least four of us refuse to acknowledge the sensitivity of this issue I can not address (were I too you would most likely take me to task for speaking in generalities, which I think you just did, by the way.) That I won't consider the sensitivity of the issue, because if the people that want to build the building want to build it, it's their prerogative. Moreover, it's their right. Now you want me to step into the fray and deny them their constitutional rights? You'd rake me over the coals on that one fast enough. In any case, no I don't believe my sensitivity should supersede their rights. Now if they choose a different location, or decide to postpone, that should be their choice. So if they decide to be 'sensitive' that's up to them, but for you to force them to adhere to YOUR own sensitivities, well that just seems a bit too pompous.
-
-
Ben,
I'm not generalizing, your comments fit hand-in-glove with the others, it's at best a comparison and the comparison wins out.
It seems everything to you is dismissed as being a straw man argument.
You're countering because you don't think there should be a muslim mosque near ground zero. At least be honest about it. And no it's not another straw man argument. They are a world wide religion. That some members of a radical subset attacked us is the motivation behind denying them their right to build. Couch it all you want in alleged sensitivity/insensitivity, let this same argument play out with christians involved and you'd probably take a vastly different tact.
My comments about sensitivity were not about the sensitivity of the people who don't want the mosque at Ground Zero, it was about the insensitivity of those who propose putting it there. The people crying about sensitivity are doing so because it allows them to be anti-muslim without appearing to anti-muslim. Sorry that's the way I see it and there's virtually nothing you can say to make me think differently. It's way too fox news to be an actual issue.
-
-
Jack, that entire line of reasoning is B.S.
You are determined to fit the issue into your narrow view.
Sorry to disappoint, but the issues are larger and more complex than how you see them. You are determined to make this an issue about bigotry because it's easy for you to be an attack dog against bigots.
Surprise - the world doesn't neatly fit your cookie-cutter view. People have opinions that don't fit neatly into your little false dichotomy view that everyone is either fully tolerant or bigoted based on how you generalize them.
As for Christians, when people who are practicing Christians conduct a terrorist attack on U.S. soil and then people who practice that same faith want to build a Christian church overlooking the attack site, then I'll discuss how insensitive that is. Since that has not happened in the U.S., it is purely hypothetical, and anything you say about it is completely speculative.
"You're countering because you don't think there should be a muslim mosque near ground zero. At least be honest about it. " I have been very honest about it. I don't think that the Muslims should build their mosque overlooking Ground Zero because it is insensitive.
I dismiss your straw men when they demonstrably are straw men, and I tell you why they're straw men. Try responding to what I actually say instead of constantly putting words into my mouth or responding to things that you said as if I had said them, or generalizing me into what you think other people think, and I'll stop pointing out that those are straw man tactics.
"I'm not generalizing, your comments fit hand-in-glove with the others, it's at best a comparison and the comparison wins out." B.S., period.
"Sorry that's the way I see it and there's virtually nothing you can say to make me think differently. It's way too fox news to be an actual issue." That statement says a lot, Jack, and it doesn't say anything good. First you admit that you have a preconceived idea about the entire situation, then you admit that you have a closed mind about it, then you throw in a non sequitur about fox news - another logical fallacy.
It would be nice if you'd respond to something I said, but I guess what I'm going to get is "Sorry that's the way I see it and there's virtually nothing you can say to make me think differently."
To paraphrase an old education commercial... "A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste." And Jack, your mind is firmly closed right now. That's a shame - I know you're capable of much better things.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
