Plan for Mosque III...

[useless]

Should we conflate and believe that Christianity = Homophobia? That Catholicism = Pedophilia? Because that is essentially what you are doing, Ayn Rand, except this time it is with Islam and Terrorism.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Right you don't know what a set is either

 

[El_Machinae]

Again, you are bringing the group of New York muslims back into the argument when they are nothing to do with the argument. Let's create 2 argument, I and II

I - The mosque is offensive to "majority of Americans"

II - Banning the mosque is offensive to "majority of Muslims"


II should be taken into account as a consequence of I. But the group "majority of muslims" is not the cause of I.

The majority of Americans have not taken offence from the majority of muslims, but at something else. However, the majority of Americans may have caused offence to the majority of muslims by taking offence at their mosque.

It is Islam that has caused offence to the majority of Americans, because there is some connection between Islam and some terrorists.

Now it appears that you think "Islam" and "majority of muslims" are synonymous. However, the "majority of Americans" do not. They see "Islam" as something separate to "muslims".

Actually, this is a pretty clear stand-alone post. I think that addressing it directly (and fanatically avoiding strawmen) might lead somewhere interesting.

 

[Mise]

Again, you are bringing the group of New York muslims back into the argument when they are nothing to do with the argument. Let's create 2 argument, I and II

I - The mosque is offensive to "majority of Americans"

II - Banning the mosque is offensive to "majority of Muslims"


II should be taken into account as a consequence of I. But the group "majority of muslims" is not the cause of I.

The majority of Americans have not taken offence from the majority of muslims, but at something else. However, the majority of Americans may have caused offence to the majority of muslims by taking offence at their mosque.

It is Islam that has caused offence to the majority of Americans, because there is some connection between Islam and some terrorists.

Now it appears that you think "Islam" and "majority of muslims" are synonymous. However, the "majority of Americans" do not. They see "Islam" as something separate to "muslims".

Okay, lets start with this:

I - The mosque is offensive to "majority of Americans"

Why is it offensive to Americans? Well, apparently, it's because they associate mosques with terrorists, and therefore are afraid of them. Well, I'll direct you to my previous post as to why that is complete nonsense. It is irrational and illogical to fear mosques. It commits the association fallacy, for a start. By the way, is the mosque offensive to you? Do you personally believe this claptrap?

Anyway, next:

II - Banning the mosque is offensive to "majority of Muslims"

Banning the mosque is illegal.

It is Islam that has caused offence to the majority of Americans, because there is some connection between Islam and some terrorists.

And in doing so, they commit the association fallacy. There is some connection between Men and some terrorists (all terrorists, in fact). It is irrational and illogical to do this.

However, the "majority of Americans" do not. They see "Islam" as something separate to "muslims".

First of all, you don't speak for Americans. In fact, you can barely speak for your self, since I don't think you've actually expounded your own, personal views yet (probably because you don't want to be caught in the inevitable absurdity of your opinions). Secondly, this is completely irrelevant, because in associating either Islam or Muslims with terrorists, they commit the association fallacy.

Finally, we asked you to provide a rational, logical argument to oppose the mosque, but all you've said is "it is rational to oppose the mosque because a lot of Americans oppose the mosque" (i.e. your point (I)). This is not a rational, logical argument; it commits the bandwagon fallacy.

You might want to look that up.

 

[useless]

You know what? This is pathetic Ayn Rand, you are literally attempting to justify why people conflate "Terrorists and Terrorism" with muslims.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, but don't you see that, once properly qualified, such statements will simply be analytically correct anyway?

Ok, let's have a go: Some Britons voted for the Conservative Party. All Conservatives voters were British. Therefore, there is a connection between the British people and the Conservative Party.

Well, it works, I can't fault you on that. I'm just left wondering why you think it's relevant.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Right you don't know what a set is either

Sorry, changed it.

And Paradigm, why don't you ever jump in and make more comprehensive and detailed arguments? You could probably help set things straight with your knowledge, and it would be appreciated

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Because I just laugh at your logic and point out any mathematical fallacies you commit in the name of trying to sound intelligent. I'm guessing you are doing economics or something

 

[Mise]

Ok, let's have a go: Some Britons voted for the Conservative Party. All Conservatives voters were British. Therefore, there is a connection between the British people and the Conservative Party.

Well, it works, I can't fault you on that. I'm just left wondering why you think it's relevant.

Indeed.

 

[Ayn Rand]

And in doing so, they commit the association fallacy. There is some connection between Men and some terrorists (all terrorists, in fact). It is irrational and illogical to do this.

Incorrect - some terrorists are men. This is not a connection but an identity statement. It therefore does not indicate a causal link but simply indicates the [for want of better expression] metaphysical universal that is "man".

Thus - identity is not an association or a cause.

I am not using the term "they were Islamic" as an identity statement but rather the term "Islam motivated them" as a causal statement.

To be similar, you would have to change your argument from "they were men" to "men-ness motivated them" - ie some property of being a man, rather than the identity "man" was the cause of the terrorism.

You know what? This is pathetic Ayn Rand, you are literally attempting to justify why people conflate "Terrorists and Terrorism" with muslims.

No I'm not, that's the whole point.

Ok, let's have a go: Some Britons voted for the Conservative Party. All Conservatives voters were British. Therefore, there is a connection between the British people and the Conservative Party.

Well, it works, I can't fault you on that. I'm just left wondering why you think it's relevant.

Exactly, you can argue the relevance but not the analytical soundness. People are saying it's a false and irrational argument - I object to that, it is neither false nor irrational, which is what I am trying to prove.

How relevant it is - well, that is clearly subjective

Because I just laugh at your logic and point out any mathematical fallacies you commit in the name of trying to sound intelligent. I'm guessing you are doing economics or something

Well that's your choice. It's easy when you just snipe from the sidelines - when you actually enter a discussion properly we can guage your contribution in a real way.

 

[Forty-Two]

Ok, let's have a go: Some Britons voted for the Conservative Party. All Conservatives voters were British. Therefore, there is a connection between the British people and the Conservative Party.

Well, it works, I can't fault you on that. I'm just left wondering why you think it's relevant.

This is sig worthy.

 

[Traitorfish]

I am not using the term "they were Islamic" as an identity statement but rather the term "Islam motivated them" as a causal statement.

Their interpretation of Islam. That is a crucial distinction. It is, going back to earlier post, what separates Sect B Cupcakers from Sect A Cupcakers, and so cannot be taken as reflective of all Cupcakeism.

 

[Ajidica]

I'm still not clear why you are opposed to it. Some people will be offended by it, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't build it. Most people are offended by the KKK, but they can still march in certain areas.

Give me your thesis in one sentence.

 

[Mise]

Incorrect - some terrorists are men. This is not a connection but an identity statement. It therefore does not indicate a causal link but simply indicates the [for want of better expression] metaphysical universal that is "man".

Thus - identity is not an association or a cause.

I am not using the term "they were Islamic" as an identity statement but rather the term "Islam motivated them" as a causal statement.

To be similar, you would have to change your argument from "they were men" to "men-ness motivated them" - ie some property of being a man, rather than the identity "man" was the cause of the terrorism.

First of all, men are far, far more likely to become serial killers or sociopaths. They are motivated by "man-ness", in the sense that men are more likely to be genetically predisposed to commiting heinous acts. For example, there are far, far more male murderers, rapists, paedophiles and serial killers. Should we be afraid of men, on the basis that they are far more likely to be genetically predisposed to being evil?

Secondly, it's not all of Islam, but a radical interpretation of Islam that motivates terrorism. You again fail to realise this.

But even if you are unwilling to accept that, there are still the examples of the paedophiles in the Catholic Church, terrorist activity in Northern Ireland, etc etc etc.

 

[useless]

The fact that the muslims that are going to worship and use the prayer facilities are Sufi, the most liberal and moderate form of Islam, has been lost on the Opposistion.

 

[Forty-Two]

The fact that the muslims that are going to worship and use the prayer facilities are Sufi, the most liberal and moderate form of Islam, has been lost on the Opposistion.

Putting a large group of people as being ignorant of a single idea is like saying all muslims are terrorists. How is saying that making yourself any better than the opposistion?

 

[Ayn Rand]

Okay, lets start with this:

Why is it offensive to Americans? Well, apparently, it's because they associate mosques with terrorists, and therefore are afraid of them. Well, I'll direct you to my previous post as to why that is complete nonsense. It is irrational and illogical to fear mosques. It commits the association fallacy, for a start. By the way, is the mosque offensive to you? Do you personally believe this claptrap?

Americans are not afraid of mosques. They are offended by this one mosque. Your argument is therefore dismissed.

Banning the mosque is illegal.

Agreed. Trivial point, but you win it.

And in doing so, they commit the association fallacy. There is some connection between Men and some terrorists (all terrorists, in fact). It is irrational and illogical to do this.

Answered this above.

First of all, you don't speak for Americans. In fact, you can barely speak for your self, since I don't think you've actually expounded your own, personal views yet (probably because you don't want to be caught in the inevitable absurdity of your opinions). Secondly, this is completely irrelevant, because in associating either Islam or Muslims with terrorists, they commit the association fallacy.

I'm not speaking for all Americans, but referencing widespread media reports that the majority are offended by the mosque.

Yes I agree with part 2 - if they associate muslims with terrorists it is an association fallacy.

For part 1 - it is categorically not an association fallacy to make some kind of connection between Al-Qaeda and Islam. There is in fact massive real-World Empirical evidence to make this association.

It would in fact be irrational to say the opposite - that there is no connection of any kind

Finally, we asked you to provide a rational, logical argument to oppose the mosque, but all you've said is "it is rational to oppose the mosque because a lot of Americans oppose the mosque" (i.e. your point (I)). This is not a rational, logical argument; it commits the bandwagon fallacy.

You might want to look that up.

No I said that there is a real connection of some sort between Al-Qaeda and Islam. The degree of offence taken by that connection is entirely subjective, and if taken too far may be considered irrational. But the connection and some level of offence in the area of Ground Zero is not inherently irrational as you are claiming.

Secondly, it's not all of Islam, but a radical interpretation of Islam that motivates terrorism. You again fail to realise this.

I have acknowedged it repeatedly. But this radical interpretation of Islam is still in some way connected to Islam, as I've stated. It is not irrational to point this out because it is a true statement, as you inherently admit in making your argument.

 

[warpus]

It is Islam that has caused offence to the majority of Americans, because there is some connection between Islam and some terrorists.

That is not a good enough reason for a rational person to be against the building of the community centre, as the offence you cite is very irrational and.. stupid. They'll get over their stupid fears.

 

[Newbunkle]

Do I need to tell you again that the real argument is the offence caused by the rational perception that Islam has some connection to some terrorists?

No, that's completely irrational. The attacks were politically motivated, not religiously motivated. There's no more reason to be offended by Islam than by facial hair just because bin Laden has a beard.

And you typed that the wrong way round. Its not Islam that has connections to terrorists, its some terrorists that have connections to Islam. Its a small, but crucial difference.

This is the situation:

These guys need a place to practice their faith. If they can't do it locally, they have to travel a long way out of the area to do it. If that becomes too inconvenient or expensive, then they might be pushed out of the area.

And why should they have to leave? They lived there and suffered 9/11 along with everyone else. Unlike everyone else, they were the targets of vicious hate crimes in the days after the attack.

Despite this, they're still making efforts to engage with the rest of the community. They're planning a community centre than anyone can go to, and they want to put a 9/11 memorial inside. All they're receiving for their efforts is intolerance and ignorance - people falsely blaming their faith for terrorism.

They've done nothing wrong, and yet their lives are being made difficult for no good reason at all. Expecting them to move away or be terribly inconvenienced to appease people with incorrect beliefs is nowhere near rational - its not even in the same universe as rational.

I watched the events of 9/11 unfold on TV, and I saw interviews with people on the streets of New York. I remember all the seething guys shouting "nuke 'em". I remember one guy in particular who said he wanted the entire Middle East turned into a "sea of glass".

How come these muslims are being targetted when other citizens in their community advocated the mass murder of innocents? These "protesters" make me sick to my stomach.

 

[Traitorfish]

At this point, Rand's argument have pretty much devolved into repeatedly asserting that "a lot of people don't like the mosque", which is rather like claiming that Batman should be President because The Dark Knight was so successful.