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 Gregory Borg on
-
And your is not, please!
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
Talking of being insensitive- Should US Military Bases in Okinawa be Named After Men Who Killed Japanese Soldiers?
http://www.japanprobe.com/2010/05/09/should-us-military-bases-in-ok...
....the base is named after an American Marine. He reminds the audience that American Marines played a major role in the battle to capture Okinawa from the Japanese, so their bases in Okinawa have been named after war heroes who died in action after “killing many Japanese soldiers.”
The celebrity panelists react with shock. How could the Americans be so insensitive? Even Ikegami agrees that the Americans should probably think more about Japanese people’s feelings. One comedian wonders if the people living nearby Camp Schwab could include some descendants of the very soldiers killed by PFC Schwab.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Interesting, all my arguments are of straw, while yours are made of what,
cow manuremud?
I make an analogy or draw a comparison and it's a non-sequitur, demonstrably false or a generalization.
Parse - to analyze (a sentence) in terms of grammatical constituents, identifying the parts of speech, syntactic relations, etc.
Your arguments are little more than tautologies.
Including your arguments with those of others that are identical (or similar) is certainly valid. Just because you say it ain't so don't make it so.
Your argument about sensitivity is at best, a wink toward those that that are ignorant bigots and rabid anti-muslim and a nod towards those that have a political agenda (that may match your own.)
I never doubted your strength of feelings on the issue, only your disingenuousness about it. Somewhere else you posted about my mind being closed. In this instance perhaps, overall...not at all. I keep an open mind about most things. It's just that in this instance (issue) I can not help but suspect an ulterior motive behind all the claims of overt sensitivity. You may be quaking like a duck, but that's pretty much where the similarity ends.
-
-
Lutan,
I can almost guaranty you that argument won't hold water. Clearly it's apples and oranges. The previous comments have suggested a japanese memorial at pearl harbor as the comparative example of insensitivity.
Naming an american base, on okinawa after an dead american hero soldier is not the same thing. If it were, it would imply that americans are insensitive, something that is clearly not the case. I mean, look at all the sensitive people that want to stop thecordoba buildingmosque.
Besides, the argument will go, that was done years ago. If the japanese were to only ask us today to change its name we'd be more than happy to oblige. Perhaps. But if that were to happen, just imagine the uproar were a democratic administration to kowtow to a request from awarmongeringconqueredpeaceful country that wanted to erase the memory of an american hero. Heresy, I say. Heresy!
-
-
So I'm guessing it's only insensitive if it's on US soil and/or against the USA?
Ok, that makes sense...... ;-)
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Jack and Luke, the Okinawa issue is clearly apples and oranges in this debate, because the Americans didn't start the war that led to the U.S. base being on Okinawa in the first place.
That's clearly a different proposition than conducting a sneak attack in the first place - the similarity between Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attack, yanno?
-
-
No, Gregory, my mind is quite open. I've already said that the Muslims have the right to build a mosque, community center, or whatever on their property.
Jack has completely disregarded that and continues to insist that my statements are not honest because they don't fit into his generalizations. He's completely wrong.
He also doesn't like it, because it shows insensitivity on the part of people who attacked the Charleston, SC fire department for their Christmas and memorial cross displays - even when the Christmas display was on the private property of a next-door neigbor. Jack kept bringing the Charleston issues up, but he doesn't like it when the Muslim insensitivity on the Ground Zero issue is pointed out, because that is a very close parallel to the similar lack of sensitivity that he and other FFN members showed when attacking the CFD on the religious display issues.
Apparently, in JackWorld, insensitivity can only be displayed by Christians, not by Muslims, atheists, or anyone else. That's hogwash, and I'm not afraid to point it out.
Sensitivity, like freedom, is a two-way street. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean that you SHOULD do that thing.
-
-
But the discussion has been around sensitivities Ben, not who started what and how.
Many responses to the discussion have been around the fact that the building of the mosque is insensitive to the Americans who died in WTC. How is it apples and oranges?
-
-
My arguments are quite valid, and you haven't been able to refute them, so you start attacking my honesty and trying to tell me what I "really meant" instead. That's an ad hominem logical fallacy, by the way. Your illogic on this issue is consistent, if quite mistaken.
Your accusations here are the same thing - ad hominems that do not address anything that I've actually said.
Continue to make things up to argue with if you wish, and I'll continue debating on the facts and not on things that you made up.
"I can not help but suspect an ulterior motive behind all the claims of overt sensitivity.' Your suspicions aren't worth the northbound end of a southbound rat, Jack. I have no ulterior motive, as I've already told you more than once today. I don't think that the Muslims should build a mosque, community center, or whatever at Ground Zero because it displays insensitivity on their part. PERIOD. There's nothing ulterior in that.
Now how about we address insensitivity on the part of those who make it their mission to attack Christians every chance they get. I've noticed that no generalizations are necessary to put you in that group. You seem to be the one with an ulterior agenda here. If that's the case, it's hypocritical as well as disengenuous.
"Open-minded about most things" indeed. Your track record here shows the exact opposite, particularly where anything Christian - or that you perceive to be Christian is concerned. Pardon me while I take a few minutes and LMAO at the level of irony in that one.
-
-
Apparently this so called sensitivity is conditional. It has to meet their certain conditions. Whodathunk...I WAS right.
-
-
Ben,
This was about the WTC, I thought, so who really gives a northbound rat's sound end how you think christians have been treated. It's not germane.
So you're accusing me of attacking christianity? show your work bubba.
I only confront those self-righteous, sanctimonious blowhards who think the only thing that matters is their particular superstition. I guess you fall into THAT category. Your ulterior motive is to support what? Free thought? atheism? Free market? What exactly is your agenda Ben? Oh yeah, you're there for the underdog.
Besides, what concern is it of yours with my "track record here"? Only things that you personally approve of are acceptable? Difficult to believe that someone so well spoken can still be just a... well, you know.
-
-
Jack, when you just make something up and then use it to cast aspersions on my honesty, to put it mildly that doesn't strengthen your position or improve your credibility.
I don't need to show any work - you've shown plenty of your own in this thread and the Charleston Christmas display thread, for starters.
Apparently you can't read English, Jack. I've told you repeatedly that I have no ulterior motive, described my motives openly more than once, and spelled it out for you. If you can't figure it out after that, then I have to question either your honesty or your literacy. Surely you wouldn't be that dishonest, would you? It must be illiteracy then, right?
Your track record here is open for comment, because you posted it in public...remember??? You can't repeatedly post your opinion in a public place and then get all, well, sensitive, when someone points out that you have one, and its' content.
"Only things that you personally approve of are acceptable?" Jack, that's ANOTHER straw man. I just give my opinion, as is my right. You started attacking me when you couldn't refute my position, and after I called you on your attempts to generalize me in with people whose opinions I clearly do not share, and you're still doing it.
And yes, Jack, when you attacked me with the ad hominems, you opened the door to in-kind retaliation. I haven't stooped to the personal attacks, questioned your honesty; all I did was pointed out that you denied things about yourself that are obvious to anyone who reads your posts, or any related in-kind ad hominems.
Jack, your continued harping on my supposed agenda or ulterior motives seems to be a case of the guilty dog barking. And...you STILL can't refute my argument. You've tried to mischaracterize it, you've tried to generalize it with other opinions that are clearly not the same thing and which I've pointed out repeatedly, and you continue to insist that I can't possibly have the opinion that I so clearly have. Why don't you just refute my opinon without the ad hominems, the straw men, and the generalizations? In fact, you haven't really tried - you've just posted a lot of smoke and mirrors.
So, Jack, what are YOUR ulterior motives here if they're not anti-Christian? What is YOUR hidden agenda here? Why do you respond to Christians with so much hate that you characterize them as "self-righteous, sanctimonious blowhards who think the only thing that matters is their particular superstition." What does matter to you, Jack, YOUR particular blowhard superstition? You have never responded in any way other than with ridicule, ad hominem attacks, or similar negativity when anything supportive of Christianity is posted here.
Now don't go getting all sensitive on me, either. After all, sensitivity is just a sham for your hidden agenda and ulterior motives, right?
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
