Unf**king Believable, A mosque to be built at Ground Zero

[pjdude1219]

Actually, most New Yorkers oppose it.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1302.xml?ReleaseID=1473

my bad I meant Manhattanites

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/07/polls-reporting-on-ground-zero-mosque.html

a 46-36 plurality of Manhattanites were in favor of it.

so the people who have to live with it support it.

 

[atheist]

lol pat condel, god love him rofl.
ppl should know the government is full of evil sick bastards who send ppl to war when its most profitable. so if they have the grand opening on 9/11/11 it doesnt suprise me.
anyone remember when airforce one was flying over NY and everyone freaked out? the worst part is america will bend over to the government, dont matter what happens.

 

[Bells]

my bad I meant Manhattanites

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/07/polls-reporting-on-ground-zero-mosque.html

a 46-36 plurality of Manhattanites were in favor of it.

so the people who have to live with it support it.

That's actually a very interesting link. And it points out the misrepresentation of the whole debate. For example, "built at Ground Zero" is false.

The purple square is "Ground Zero". The red dot is to be the cultural centre.

Cordoba House, shown in a red outline on the map, would be on Park Place between West Broadway and Church Street. Park Place does not intersect Ground Zero; instead, it runs parallel to it, two blocks to its north.

It is unlikely that very many people commuting to the World Trade Center site would pass by Cordoba House -- walking on that particular stretch of Park Place would not be a natural route except in unusual circumstances. Nor, does it appear to me, would Cordoba House be visible from ground level anywhere at the World Trade Center complex. The Federal Office Building across from Vesey Street on Ground Zero's northern perimeter is sixteen stories high, as is the office building between Barclay Street and Park Place; they would presumably block the view of the more diminutive Cordoba House, which although somewhat architecturally daring does not contain minarets or other spire-like features that would give it greater prominence than an ordinary, 12-story building. Like dozens and dozens of other buildings, and several other places of worship near to Ground Zero, it would be quite well concealed among Lower Manhattan's dense street grid.

Interestingly, although the Quinnipiac poll showed a majority of New York City residents opposed to the project, a 46-36 plurality of Manhattanites were in favor of it. There could be a variety of reasons for this, but one might be that they have a superior understanding of the borough's geography. It is not as though there's just one road to Ground Zero and some huge mosque would be built right next door to it.

Although the Quinnipiac Poll described Cordoba House fairly completely -- as "a Muslim mosque and cultural center" -- the Rasmussen poll describes it merely as "a mosque near the 9/11 Ground Zero site", omitting any description of its multipurpose nature. It is hard to say how much difference this makes, but Rasmussen, which often has problems with question wording, would probably do more to inform its respondents by referring to it as Quinnipiac did.

(From PJ's Link)

 

[iceaura]

That's actually a very interesting link. And it points out the misrepresentation of the whole debate. For example, "built at Ground Zero" is false.

They got the building for cheap, because it was empty, abandoned for years.

It was empty because part of the undercarriage of a jet plane had gone through the roof, heavily damaging it, about nine years ago.

The exact circumstances are not clear, but the will of God was visible in these events -

And actually, the building found us, because it's been abandoned for the last nine years. Just sort of sitting vacant. It was struck by a plane, a piece of the fuselage fell into the building, and it was shut down since then. And it's been vacant for nine years.
- - - - -
I think the building came to us, which goes to show that there is a symbolism there, and that there's a divine hand in it.

So do you agree, Bells, that there is a symbolism in the location and circumstances of this building? A divine hand at work, bringing this building to them?

 

[Pandaemoni]

Sure, if you were to be believed

Damn, you caught my lie.

Just what role would the common man play in such a case? If there's a lot of sentiment that the group being surveilled is already suffering from undue legal attention, who would want to pursue such a case?

So long as you limit your activities to the kind of ineffectual bitching you have displayed here, you are free to do it. Private citizens can bitch and moan, can listen in on religious services, speak with those coming out of the building who are willing to talk, etc. One can also search public records, make phone calls, and do the same sorts of things that journalists do to see what one can find. It's all legal and all also within the bounds of free speech.

Now, some might call your allies on their paranoid bigoted bullshit, but that is free speech too, and so therefore they should be allowed to share the thought and hopefully educate you your side a bit (and, no, your side's critics should not be silenced, though I am sure that would be your preference).

Disagreed: one can delimit hate without impacting on the rights of others.

Thank God that that is not and never has been the law in this country. Your politics would leave us less free. Who is the arbiter of what is and is not acceptable speech/assembly/religious practice/use of property in your view? Random mobs? You personally? Majority rule? Some committee you would like to see established? It's not clear to me, save that you do no want individuals involved here having the right to make their own call.

Again, you are deliberately canalizing the debate: argue honestly, and we can continue. If you frame it in such a manner, it comes down to yes you did versus no I didn't. You don't mention the personages involved, or their connections, or the valid questions surrounding the proposed mosque, so I guess the debate can stop here. Let me know if you want to pick it up again. I deleted the remainder of your response - I've been down this road with others, and it bears no fruit that I would consider edible. Excepting this:

Typical of you, if you have no answer claim the debate to be over. When you don't have an effective answer that must mean that my argumentation is wrong. The truth is that your position is bigoted bullshit, and you can't handle that simple truth.

And do you honestly think that any other church, temple or mosque in southern Manhattan would refuse to do so, in a similar case? Would you support them if they did refuse? Of course not. Not to mention that same, eggshell-careful avoidance of the issues around Rauf. I've never understood why blank-eyed mouthing of the common is considered an acceptable strategy in a debate.

My God. You live in irrelevancies.

It does not matter whether he wants to cooperate or why. My neighbor's mail is often misdelivered to me (because his entrance is around back, and mine is in the front and more obvious). Often it comes in opaque plastic packaging. I think it's porn and he gets seemingly a lot of it (sometimes a half a dozen magazines in a single day, and every time I have gotten his mail save one, there were at least two such magazines).

It's enough porn that I worry about what the Hell is going on in his head. If I demand to know what that mail is that he received, it does not matter that he refuses to answer. His right to that mail, and to read what he wants to read DOES NOT HINGE on his cooperation with my questions. It does not matter how reasonable my questions are, my concerns are my own; nothing gives me the right to deny him his freedoms--his rights--based on my concerns or to foist my problems with him onto his shoulders. Add to that that the right to read what you want is not really an express constitutional right, and it is certainly not four important rights, like the four you want to see violated in the present case.

In fact, I did once half-jokingly ask him what was up, and he clammed up and quickly, awkwardly, excused himself. In you analysis, if he has nothing to hide, then he should have cooperated. Otherwise it's "proper" for him to be denied his right to read what he wants until I am satisfied he isn't deranged or some sort of perv. (He *might* be a child molester or--given how weird he is--a serial killer. It's possible, and the mere possibility that he may do something in the future is enough to shift the burden to him and to strip him of his rights until he satisfies that burden, correct?) In my analysis, he was well within his rights to refuse to answer my question, even though I was within my rights to ask it.

Do I have the right to open his mail next time? No, I do not. That would be illegal and an invasion of his right to privacy unless he consents. I have no right to inflict any denial of any rights upon him, whether or not he allays my concerns.

Get over yourself. Muslims have rights and should be free to exercise them notwithstanding the fact that you are demanding answers. Your demands are meaningless to the question of what rights Muslims ought to have. And that is your point...that so long as the Great Geoff has unanswered questions, the fundamental rights of Muslims can and will be set aside and ignored. And the Great Geoff had better like the answers he receives, of course, or else the rights will continue to be denied. And you have the gall to think you are the one defending liberty.

 

[GeoffP]

Ask no one any questions - ever - and no one can possibly lie

Damn, you caught my lie.

Ahem.

"You" is a personal pronoun that *can* refer to you personally, and can also refer to "you" as a group. Please keep that in mind in the future when reading English. In this case, "you" meant "your side of the debate". As evidence, note how I referred to "your side" in the sentence—the very clause—that immediately preceded this sentence you quote. So, your/* hilarious/** sarcasm would be more effective had your reading comprehension been stronger. As for how I know what your side's position is, I read the papers.

-------------
/* As in "your personal", not "your side's".

/**No, really, I am holding my sides for fear that they may burst.

So long as you limit your activities to the kind of ineffectual bitching you have displayed here, you are free to do it. Private citizens can bitch and moan, can listen in on religious services, speak with those coming out of the building who are willing to talk, etc. One can also search public records, make phone calls, and do the same sorts of things that journalists do to see what one can find. It's all legal and all also within the bounds of free speech.

That's very generous of you, although successful prosecution would hardly be "ineffectual".

Thank God that that is not and never has been the law in this country. Your politics would leave us less free.

What a shame for you, then, that that is in fact the practice of this country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crimes

Who is the arbiter of what is and is not acceptable speech/assembly/religious practice/use of property in your view? Random mobs? You personally? Majority rule? Some committee you would like to see established? It's not clear to me, save that you do no want individuals involved here having the right to make their own call.

What absurd nonsense - mob rule, naturally, Panda. Sharpen your pitchforks. Perhaps we could simply adhere to the laws this country establishes regarding hate crimes?

Typical of you, if you have no answer claim the debate to be over. When you don't have an effective answer that must mean that my argumentation is wrong. The truth is that your position is bigoted bullshit, and you can't handle that simple truth.

This is bullshit on several levels - weasel wording combined with outright fallacy. First off, it is abundantly clear that I answer all claims and have done so throughout my time on this forum. I am known for my completeness; far more so than anyone I've ever seen. So that is, at best, ignorance. Secondly, there is not a thing bigoted about it, and your pat answers have, again, demonstrated that as you aptly dodge the real issues again and again: my bigotry (you know - requesting a more full investigation) puts me at worst on par with the ADL. You remember them, don't you?

My God. You live in irrelevancies.

It does not matter whether he wants to cooperate or why.

That is one of the worst arguments I've seen on this forum yet. You dodged the comparison completely; it had nothing to do with motive. You rejoinder was a farcical hand-wringing about the pornographic habits of your neighbour: would you be so tolerant if you thought you spotted a copy of Young Boys in Hard Places packed into that mass? Maybe if he invited a few kids over? And now the choices you'd presume to offer me in the place of you in this scenario are: what? Torches and pitchforks, or maybe just kicking in his door? Please. You invent these scenarios, Panda, censoring them down to the most advantageous version as it appears in your head and expect that I should just accept them as meaningful or moral. Meanwhile, the stance of your opponent is demonized en passant:

Get over yourself. Muslims have rights and should be free to exercise them notwithstanding the fact that you are demanding answers.

Sorry, is it "Muslims" building this mosque, or is it an individual named Rauf and his questionable attitudes and funding sources? You make out a commitment to "freedom", but it's just nihilism. If this is to be your continued mode, there's little point to continuing the argument; either start extending me the consideration I give you, or just stop.

 

[Bells]

They got the building for cheap, because it was empty, abandoned for years.

It was empty because part of the undercarriage of a jet plane had gone through the roof, heavily damaging it, about nine years ago.

The exact circumstances are not clear, but the will of God was visible in these events -

So do you agree, Bells, that there is a symbolism in the location and circumstances of this building? A divine hand at work, bringing this building to them?

As an atheist, I would have to say no. As you said yourself, the land was cheap and no one wanted it.

 

[Pandaemoni]

That's very generous of you, although successful prosecution would hardly be "ineffectual".

That's true, but I seriously doubt you will ever get a "successful prosecution." You have yet to have proof of any wrongdoing, you only allege that in the future they may say or do something actionable or that could lead to a prosecution of any sort (successful or otherwise). The same is true of any living human being, Muslim or not, yet we do not all consider ourselves as good as convicted. It's a bit early to be counting those chickens.

What a shame for you, then, that that is in fact the practice of this country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crimes

Please reread your link. Speaking hatred is *not* "hate crime." A hate crime is a regular crime that is provoked by a particular intent. The First Amendment protects the rights of hate mongers (like anti-Muslim protesters) to speak their hatred, but if you go further and attack Muslims, or bomb their mosques, then *that* would be a hate crime.

*If* in the future a person in the mosque attempts to incite violence, even if his actions are limited to speech, that may be (but is not always) actionable. Those are the close calls, and some are criminal and some are not.

What you are arguing for is a wholly new standard, of discrimination based on conjecture about one’s future actions. There isn't even any real speech that you are objecting to, so no actus reus. You just want to tread on the rights of others because they may commit a crime. As anyone may commit a crime in the future, though, your principle seems wholly foolish.

What absurd nonsense - mob rule, naturally, Panda. Sharpen your pitchforks. Perhaps we could simply adhere to the laws this country establishes regarding hate crimes?

We should, but in the case of hate crimes we know the answer to the question you dodge: a jury decides if the element of hatred was present...and in any event again Hatred + speech is not automatically a crime unless the speech provokes imminent risk of violence...and imminent means "nearly immediate".

No one here is guilty of any hate crime, nor is there even any evidence of one, so peddle that canard elsewhere.

This is bullshit on several levels - weasel wording combined with outright fallacy. First off, it is abundantly clear that I answer all claims and have done so throughout my time on this forum. I am known for my completeness; far more so than anyone I've ever seen. So that is, at best, ignorance. Secondly, there is not a thing bigoted about it, and your pat answers have, again, demonstrated that as you aptly dodge the real issues again and again: my bigotry (you know - requesting a more full investigation) puts me at worst on par with the ADL. You remember them, don't you?

Yes, the ADL is never in the wrong (just like appeals to authority), and you are a respected forum poster by all known for your thoroughness. What color is the sky in your world?

Your position requires Muslims to be subject to your interrogation and denies them basic liberties unless and until they submit. You demand for answers and denial of liberties has no basis in U.S. law. You do not foist these kinds of demands or illegal restrictions on any other group and you justify it solely on the basis of your concerns about these Muslims possibly being dangerous in the future. Sorry son, but that is pretty bigoted. I know that you will believe whatever lets you sleep at night, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I am well within the bounds of reasonableness to believe it to be a duck.

That is one of the worst arguments I've seen on this forum yet.

Look harder, every argument so far by "GeoffP" in this thread is hilariously bad.

You dodged the comparison completely; it had nothing to do with motive. You rejoinder was a farcical hand-wringing about the pornographic habits of your neighbor: would you be so tolerant if you thought you spotted a copy of Young Boys in Hard Places packed into that mass? Maybe if he invited a few kids over? And now the choices you'd presume to offer me in the place of you in this scenario are: what? Torches and pitchforks, or maybe just kicking in his door? Please. You invent these scenarios, Panda, censoring them down to the most advantageous version as it appears in your head and expect that I should just accept them as meaningful or moral. Meanwhile, the stance of your opponent is demonized en passant:

Your comeback is laughably bad, as expected. You take my analogy and change it by asking what I would do were there child porn in the mix. Okay, fair enough so far. That would be a "smoking gun" in terms of its evidentiary quality, and the fact that my neighbor received it would mean HE IS GUILTY OF A CRIME. Note: not "he may possibly someday be guilty of a potential crime in the future", but rather that it is illegal, and he can be arrested merely for receiving it. (The only out open to him is if it was misdelivered to his address, and that would get him acquitted, it would not render his arrest invalid.)

So, I would be justified in taking action if I knew he received it, not because of any conjectural future crime, but because of an (alleged) actually already committed crime. The investigation and any denial of his rights would come after the actus reus, as is required by law.

More to the point:

YOU HAVE NO SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE AGAINST RAUF! You have nothing save for your own suspicions and concerns because you don't like his message. If you have convincing evidence that he is guilty of a current crime, you have not yet produced it, and that would be a game changer. All you have is concerns over crimes that might be facilitated if the mosque is built. How the mosque will facilitate crimes is also still a mystery, since there is no dearth of places to conspire, and many would be far less conspicuous. (Stealth is generally at a premium when conducting a criminal enterprise...and so open discussions in a 13-story Muslim center near Ground Zero with anti-Muslim loons watching the building is contraindicated.)

Given that this center would be, if anything, a somewhat poor place from which to launch a criminal endeavor as compared to any other private building that Rauf may buy, it seems unlikely that this concern for future criminality is rational.

I would accept that you are concerned about current or past criminality by Rauf as well. That said, the standard for the state's coercively investigating crimes is clear (with Rauf or with my neighbor): probable cause. You are not even close to meeting that bar. There is no "lesser" standard for Muslims or even (shock!) for guys you disagree with.

When probable cause exists, then the state (not you) can compel Rauf to cooperate to *some* degree (the state still can't compel him to answer the questions you would like, because we have the fifth amendment and a right to remain silent).

Sorry, is it "Muslims" building this mosque, or is it an individual named Rauf and his questionable attitudes and funding sources? You make out a commitment to "freedom", but it's just nihilism. If this is to be your continued mode, there's little point to continuing the argument; either start extending me the consideration I give you, or just stop.

Thanks for your opinion. I remind you: that is all it is. I will stop when I feel like it. Contrary to your apparent beliefs about the world, we do not live and act in it at your pleasure.

You are correct that I have conflated Rauf and “Muslims” in that statement, however you have indicated that you would be opposed to any mosque there, not just Rauf’s mosque. You were expressly gracious enough to allow Muslims to live in southern Manhattan, but very clear that you did not want them to have a house of worship there. As you said:

[T]here is an ethical inconsistency in the position that Muslims (who are by definition people who follow Islam) are to be welcomed but there is no room for Islam.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm undecided about this one; but again, if it were the site of a massacre by Christians, I sure as hell wouldn't want a church put up there, because it might be seen as supremacist and hugely insulting to the locals.

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2564076&postcount=345

By the first sentence I took you mean that you were undecided on the question of whether Islam (i.e. the religion of Muslims) has a place in the area. Seems clear. Not "whether Rauf has a place in the area," but all of Islam. By the last sentence in that quotes, I took you to mean, “[Since this was] the site of a massacre by [Muslims], I sure as hell wouldn't want a [mosque] put up there, because it might be seen as supremacist and hugely insulting to the locals.”

That also seems clear. You do not oppose Rauf alone, but to at least some degree oppose any mosque. Rauf and your supposed questions are merely cover. Your focus on Rauf is a side show. You and your side have come to rely on it because it is almost defensible (if not quite as a matter of U.S. law and history, at least intuitively). The problem is that your view of the world amounts to "guilty until proven innocent." Worse than that, "guilty until you convince me that maybe you shouldn't be stereotyped into the same group as terrorists, and even then the rule is 'no mosques.'" To apply this rule of "all suspects must prove their innocence" only works when applied on a small scale...and only to social and political minorities. If the same rule were applied to the majority or any politically powerful player, it would be denounced in the strongest terms.

Finally, My position is not nihilism, and that you raise this suggests that you need to look up what nihilism means: i.e. the rejection of social norms on the grounds that they are not properly founded. I am arguing from very well established American values: freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, the right of free assembly, the right to own and use property and, more recently, the right to remain silent. You are the one rejecting them. You want Rauf (and given your other statements, Muslims in general) to justify to your satisfaction any presence of Islam they would bring to the general vicinity of Ground Zero, and would deny any of them the right to have a mosque there. That means you are blatantly ignoring the rights I am espousing. If there is nihilism here, it's on your side. Not that you are a nihilist; as I said, nihilism is a rejection of norms on the grounds they are unfounded. You have yet to offer any grounds for your rejection of such fundamental liberties.

Oh ever so respected debater and forum participant, get thee to a dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nihilism

 

[GeoffP]

Disingenuity, thy name is Pandaemoni

That's true, but I seriously doubt you will ever get a "successful prosecution."

Then you have, in effect, proved my point, for which I thank you. I remind you that we're discussing a theoretical case involving a theoretical scenario of yours. It would be difficult indeed to "count any chickens" regarding imaginary people.

*If* in the future a person in the mosque attempts to incite violence, even if his actions are limited to speech, that may be (but is not always) actionable. Those are the close calls, and some are criminal and some are not.

Precisely the point: some are. I think you're suffering from the delusion of legality as the arbiter of morality: it clearly isn't.

What you are arguing for is a wholly new standard, of discrimination based on conjecture about one’s future actions.

Again: no, Panda. Could you try not to build your straw men around me? I wasn't aware that this was what you were doing to begin with, but it has become increasingly clear that this is your line.

We should, but in the case of hate crimes we know the answer to the question you dodge:

Another astounding misinterpretation: nothing has been dodged, although your ponderous argument was ridiculed quite thoroughly.

No one here is guilty of any hate crime, nor is there even any evidence of one, so peddle that canard elsewhere.

The canard you created?

Yes, the ADL is never in the wrong (just like appeals to authority), and you are a respected forum poster by all known for your thoroughness. What color is the sky in your world?

:yawn: More ad hominem. I do accept your appeal to my argument from authority, above, but let's examine what your assaults on me are built on: you describe me ironically as a "respected poster known for my thoroughness" - this would be a more effective insult if you had any such standing yourself. What, precisely, are your qualifications here, since you engage in personal attacks? You accuse me of dodging, I instruct you as to the record, and you fall back to personal attacks while hiding behind straw men and herrings. Sir, perhaps it is time you re-examined your own ethics before belabouring others with your unsupportable character assassination.

Your position requires Muslims to be subject to your interrogation and denies them basic liberties unless and until they submit.

This is what is known down my way as a "lie". I would say you simply suffer from ignorance, but I've provided so much instruction that completely belies your offensive assertion that you would probably have to be literally blind to miss it. Short version: I'm not a bigot, but you are a liar.

Your comeback is laughably bad, as expected. You take my analogy and change it by asking what I would do were there child porn in the mix. Okay, fair enough so far. That would be a "smoking gun" in terms of its evidentiary quality, and the fact that my neighbor received it would mean HE IS GUILTY OF A CRIME.

Jump the gun much? You're back on this absurd "potential" notion again; you either avoid linking the metaphorical scenario to the present state of the case. Note: you think you saw some child porn there. Rauf seems to have suspicious connections. Let's not have any more of these imaginary "you just think Rauf might do something in the future", as if there were nothing suspicious about him in the present.

So, I would be justified in taking action if I knew he received it, not because of any conjectural future crime

Yes, amazingly correct for once, Panda. This is not a difficult concept.

More to the point:

YOU HAVE NO SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE AGAINST RAUF!

Oh? I'm required to have "smoking gun evidence" against a man before I commit to an investigation? This is certainly a novel precept in legal maneuvering: what precedent is there for this?

I would accept that you are concerned about current or past criminality by Rauf as well. That said, the standard for the state's coercively investigating crimes is clear (with Rauf or with my neighbor): probable cause. You are not even close to meeting that bar. There is no "lesser" standard for Muslims or even (shock!) for guys you disagree with.

Well, which standard are you comparing it to, since you raise that issue? You can't pretend that there is some "lesser" standard for Muslims when a) no such issue has ever been raised by me and b) you have in point of fact no case to compare to. Please. Desist with the leading nonsense.

You are correct that I have conflated Rauf and “Muslims” in that statement, however you have indicated that you would be opposed to any mosque there, not just Rauf’s mosque. You were expressly gracious enough to allow Muslims to live in southern Manhattan

Weasel wording; deplorably dishonest. Again.

, but very clear that you did not want them to have a house of worship there. As you said:

Ah, but you fail to follow once again. Allow me to point out a recent post of mine on the matter:

Maybe, maybe not. I'm undecided about this one; but again, if it were the site of a massacre by Christians, I sure as hell wouldn't want a church put up there, because it might be seen as supremacist and hugely insulting to the locals.

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2564076&postcount=345

My position is by definition reflective. As you erroneously confound "Rauf" and "Muslims", so you also confound the basis for my objections. One regards taste, the other the support and outlook of the builders. You cite selectively, councillor.

By the first sentence I took you mean that you were undecided on the question of whether Islam (i.e. the religion of Muslims) has a place in the area.

Ah - then that is, for the first time, my error. I was speaking specifically to the issue of whether or not a mosque ought to go there. (Mind, the building on which the proposed site sits is already being used as a mosque, so this point might well be moot.) My apologies. Will you now also apologize for deliberately misrepresenting me?

That also seems clear. You do not oppose Rauf alone, but to at least some degree oppose any mosque.

Possibly so; yet, the coat factory there is already being used in this capacity - I commend you on finally addressing this as a question, rather than using it as a club of assertion. I would put it this way: the erection of an overly ostentatious mosque would be in poor taste in many quarters, and possibly here also. I'm undecided; I suspect such a structure would be seen as a sort of triumph in conservative Islamic quarters, whatever the outlook of the builders. When Sufis in the United States are condemning the very idea, one knows there may be an ethical issue after all; I refer you to Suleyman Schwarz, among others. Perhaps he is also a bigot? What standards shall I use to separate his opinion from mine, since they are - at worst - precisely the same on this issue?

Rauf and your supposed questions are merely cover. Your focus on Rauf is a side show.

No; this line of attack is another non sequitur. Rauf is my main objection, as any fair and unbiased examination will show. Are you quite done?

Finally, My position is not nihilism

Regrettably, it is.

Best of luck on your next attempt. I hope it will be more ethical than the last - fewer farcical analogies and hypothetical scenarios-turned-Pinnochio; I should hate for your standing on the forum to fall any lower.

 

[pjdude1219]

Yes, the ADL is never in the wrong (just like appeals to authority), and you are a respected forum poster by all known for your thoroughness. What color is the sky in your world?

Your position requires Muslims to be subject to your interrogation and denies them basic liberties unless and until they submit. You demand for answers and denial of liberties has no basis in U.S. law. You do not foist these kinds of demands or illegal restrictions on any other group and you justify it solely on the basis of your concerns about these Muslims possibly being dangerous in the future. Sorry son, but that is pretty bigoted. I know that you will believe whatever lets you sleep at night, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I am well within the bounds of reasonableness to believe it to be a duck.

not to mention the ADL like all jewish lobbying groups has something to gain by ensuring Islam doesn't become accepted into the mainstream and is able to interact without suspicion.

 

[GeoffP]

not to mention the ADL like all jewish lobbying groups has something to gain by ensuring Islam doesn't become accepted into the mainstream and is able to interact without suspicion.

Excuse me. What precisely have 'all Jewish lobbying groups' to gain?

 

[Pandaemoni]

Disingenuity, thy name is Pandaemoni

You really need to learn how to debate. You raise arguments and then object when they are answered on the terms in which you raised them, then call you opponents unfounded names (unlike the description of you as a bigot, which is well earned).

I'm disingenuous? You are delusional.

Then you have, in effect, proved my point, for which I thank you. I remind you that we're discussing a theoretical case involving a theoretical scenario of yours. It would be difficult indeed to "count any chickens" regarding imaginary people.

I raised a hypothetical to draw a parallel. It's called an analogy. That you don't understand it is evidence of why you are noearly so respected as you think you are.

The reason you'll never get a successful prosecution, imo, is that your "evidence" is so weak that there is no reasonable basis to suspect a crime will ever be committed. But in your paranoid mind, the only possible reason, of course, is that they will "get away with it." Once again, you assume their guilt in advance of a trial, and in advance of solid evidence, and pretend that you are interested in justice. That's pretty disingenuous,

Thanks for proving my point, that your argument is not based in reason.

Precisely the point: some are. I think you're suffering from the delusion of legality as the arbiter of morality: it clearly isn't.

I never equated the two. That said, you are not the morality police and no one has the right to deny another fundamental rights on the basis on allegedly immoral acts that are not in fact illegal. But once again you fail to engage with the real issue...you have no evidence of ANY immoral acts. You only have your fears that immoral acts may possibly occur in the future, which is a piss poor reason to abridge anyone's rights...but I think I am beginning to see your point.

You have almost (but not quite) convinced me that if we abridged your rights, the world would be a better place, and that you are sufficiently hostile to liberty that it would be no loss. Problem, if I limit your rights I have to play arbiter of who is entitled to rights at all...and plainly you think that is your job.

Again: no, Panda. Could you try not to build your straw men around me? I wasn't aware that this was what you were doing to begin with, but it has become increasingly clear that this is your line.

Do you read your own words or do you suffer from multiple personality disorder? You have not pointed to any ongoing or past conduct that even comes close to justifying the denial of free speech, religious liberty and all the rest, and you admitted previously that your real concern was that the mosque might be a base for radical elements that in your view need to be silenced. The mosque does not exist yet, and therefore is not base for anything now. Hence if your concern is not future conduct, the you have not made a single even arguably good point so far in two threads and hundreds of paragraphs.

Go back and read you posts before continuing the debate. (Aren't these sorts of arrogant overbearing commands annoying?)

Another astounding misinterpretation: nothing has been dodged, although your ponderous argument was ridiculed quite thoroughly.



The canard you created?

You raised the hate crime issue, clearly without having an understanding as to what they are. There are no hate crimes in evidence here, so why did you bring them up, save as a distraction? You linked to wikipedia, but offered no context for why you thought they were relevant. If I misunderstood, fair enough, but only because your argumentation is generally deficient.

:yawn: More ad hominem.

Yawn, you throw around ad homs all the time, so save the feigned superiority. You are not good at this.

I do accept your appeal to my argument from authority, above, but let's examine what your assaults on me are built on: you describe me ironically as a "respected poster known for my thoroughness" - this would be a more effective insult if you had any such standing yourself. What, precisely, are your qualifications here, since you engage in personal attacks? You accuse me of dodging, I instruct you as to the record, and you fall back to personal attacks while hiding behind straw men and herrings. Sir, perhaps it is time you re-examined your own ethics before belabouring others with your unsupportable character assassination.

You are the one who arrogantly described yourself as being known for your thoroughness throughout these forums. I was merely pointing out that I never got that impression at all, and find the overweening self aggrandizement both to be a logical fallacy (since you were in effect suggesting that you are an authority--you are not),and, quite seriously, it suggests to me that you could well be afflicted with narcissistic personality disorder.

That you see my suggestion that your standing a reputation is not IMO as high as you think it is as a vicious personal attack, further suggests NPD.

Assuming, arguendo, that you have the sterling reputation you indicated, being of high standing on an internet forum is not impressive. It certainly does not make your position correct, and certainly does not suggest that your position deserves deference.

Also, just to point out, citing to the ADL is not an argument from authority, but an appeal to authority, in this case. The ADL is an authority, no doubt, on the past actions of Rauf and others, but that authority does not extend into the futire use of a mosque that has not been built yet. Like you, they have concerns. Like you, they like to believe that their concerns trump considerations regarding certain rights, but the moral intuitions of the people at the ADL carry no more weight than anyone else's good faith moral intuitions. In short, in their believe that the mosque is an affront and a likely hotbed of future radicalism, they act outside of the areas in which they are actually expert. As such, those opinions are not authoritative.

This is what is known down my way as a "lie". I would say you simply suffer from ignorance, but I've provided so much instruction that completely belies your offensive assertion that you would probably have to be literally blind to miss it. Short version: I'm not a bigot, but you are a liar.

:yawn: Another ad hominem...so tiresome.
[/dismounts high horse]

You are clearly a bigot, the denial of which makes you a liar as well (although, interestingly, NPD would explain how one can adopt a bigoted position and yet still honestly, but wrongly, believe that one is not a bigot). I on the other hand, merely call 'em as I see 'em.

You have been very clear that Rauf's right to build should be predicated on his answering your side's questions. At the same time you have also said that no mosque should be built on that site and that you are "undecided" on questions of what other aspects of Islam may exist in that area. That first position is inconsistent wit the latter two. I have to conclude that either you changes your mind (which is fine), or that your new assertions of merely wanting the truth is a dodge to cover the fact that no answers would be satisfactory to you, and that under no circumstances would you condone the building of a mosque there.

Jump the gun much? You're back on this absurd "potential" notion again; you either avoid linking the metaphorical scenario to the present state of the case. Note: you think you saw some child porn there. Rauf seems to have suspicious connections. Let's not have any more of these imaginary "you just think Rauf might do something in the future", as if there were nothing suspicious about him in the present.

What you fail to engage with is the reality that suspicion only is not sufficient moral or legal grounds to deny anyone fundamental rights, unless it rises to a very high level--and your evidence is no where near that.

You do not get to deny him the rights to free speech, free assembly, religious freedom, use of property and the right to ignore your questions (sometimes called the right to remain silent) based on suspicion. In fact, is suspicion were grounds to demand that anyone answer questions, then there would never, really, be a right to remain silent.

You might as well argue that he should be arrested based on your suspicions alone, as the only distinction is that you may (though I do not) feel that the right to physical liberty is "more fundamental" that any of those other rights. In any case, you are denying him fundamental freedoms without a serious basis for doing so. What's a serious basis? Evidence that would allow the state to step in and curtail his freedom, because only the State may do that. Your side has no legitimate power to deny him a single right. What you do have is the right to watch and gather information (though not compel him to produce information) and to turn that over to the State if it suggests that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been or will be committed.

Oh? I'm required to have "smoking gun evidence" against a man before I commit to an investigation? This is certainly a novel precept in legal maneuvering: what precedent is there for this?[/quiote]

Reading comprehension is a skill you need to master. Thanks for this straw man though, as I never said what you are suggesting.

For your benefit:

1) You raised a counter hypothetical regarding my finding child porn in Paul's mail.

2) That is "smoking gun evidence" that a crime has in fact already been committed.

3) On that basis, my neighbor Paul can be arrested. No investigation is required...he can immediately be arrested based on the child porn alone. That arrest is a denial of one of Paul's fundamental rights, and is based on the antecedent actus reus of his having received the child porn.

(There will then be a subsequent investigation, but the right to deny him liberty arises before that is complete based on the overwhelming strength of the "smoking gun" evidence.)

4) [Here is where the analogy is transferred to the present case.] *If*, as in the hypothetical, you had evidence that Rauf had already committed a crime, and *if* that evidence were sufficent to negate any need for an investigation before the authorities would have the right to deny him one or more of his fundamental rights, then I would have no problem with your position that he should not be allowed to build at the site.

In short, if powerful, "smoking gun" evidence existed, then the authorities (not you personally, though the authorities might be acting based on your information) would be right to deny Rauf and the other Muslims who would use the mosque their right and ability to do so.

BUT

5) You have no such powerful evidence of an antecedent crime. NO SMOKING GUN.

There is nothing about an investigation in point 5. I have said before that you have the right o ask questions and seek answers. Why you believe you have the right to compel answers be given by Rauf (and, more importantly, why, in the absence of such answers you feel it is acceptable for several of his basic freedoms to be denied pending your receiving those answers) is beyond me.

Here again though, interesting point that you would deny: you have no clear evidence of a crime having been committed, and so what is your concern? It seems to me that your concern must be relate to some future action.

I will get to the rest of your drivel, but at my leisure, Schooling you is tedious, because you engage in rhetorical games and misdirection, rather than honest debate (and then you accuse me of doing the same, which is doubly galling).

In the mean time, why don't you call be a liar who uses weasel words some more, and then whine and cry that *I* use ad hominem arguments.

 

[pjdude1219]

That's actually a very interesting link. And it points out the misrepresentation of the whole debate. For example, "built at Ground Zero" is false.

The purple square is "Ground Zero". The red dot is to be the cultural centre.

Nate Silver does a good job no matter what any right wing cranks say.

 

[pjdude1219]

Excuse me. What precisely have 'all Jewish lobbying groups' to gain?

well not so much gain as maintain the current monopoly on influencing US middle eastern policy. Unless you honestly believe that having groups actually give a view other than ISr5ael is good is good for jewish lobbying groups.

 

[GeoffP]

You really need to learn how to debate. You raise arguments and then object when they are answered on the terms in which you raised them

Except that they are not.

, then call you opponents unfounded names (unlike the description of you as a bigot, which is well earned).

You know, I was going to let it go, but I think I might have to call you on this one: you will now demonstrate evidence of the above claim.

I raised a hypothetical to draw a parallel. It's called an analogy. That you don't understand it is evidence of why you are noearly so respected as you think you are.

Maybe it's for my superior spelling of "nearly". You raised a hypothetical scenario and then accidentally answered my question for me. You make assumptions about my apparent assumptions, and you wonder why I lose patience with you.

I never equated the two. That said, you are not the morality police and no one has the right to deny another fundamental rights on the basis on allegedly immoral acts that are not in fact illegal.

And we have already illustrated ways in which they could indeed be considered illegal, as you chase your herring right down into the shallows. I thank you.

You have almost (but not quite) convinced me that if we abridged your rights, the world would be a better place, and that you are sufficiently hostile to liberty that it would be no loss. Problem, if I limit your rights I have to play arbiter of who is entitled to rights at all...and plainly you think that is your job.

Your perspective amazes me. If I insist on a more thorough vetting of Mr Rauf, I must be insisting on the denial of the rights of another. To counter this, Panda must almost (but not quite) support my silencing. Kudos on your newfound lability in social equality. You see no peripheral issues relating to this case - justice being rather blinded than blind now - but you think you see into the abstract well enough to read my personality? Don't be ridiculous.

You have not pointed to any ongoing or past conduct that even comes close to justifying the denial of free speech, religious liberty and all the rest, and you admitted previously that your real concern

I have to stop your argument there, as it runs off the track: real concern relative to what? Where exactly did I call this my "real concern"? In relation to what? Context, Panda. The denial of hate speech is not uniformly the denial of free speech; and you still have to prove the issue about religious liberty, frankly.

You raised the hate crime issue, clearly without having an understanding as to what they are. There are no hate crimes in evidence here, so why did you bring them up, save as a distraction?

Amazing. I raised the possibility that this edifice could be used for hate crimes. You then countered by stating that hate crimes are solely those of action. I illustrated that your argument was incorrect, you agreed, and now you're back on the distraction that you yourself offered?

You are the one who arrogantly described yourself as being known for your thoroughness throughout these forums. I was merely pointing out that I never got that impression at all

Then you are merely ignorant, rather than malicious. I apologize. Although I note this also:

Assuming, arguendo, that you have the sterling reputation you indicated, being of high standing on an internet forum is not impressive.

You realize, of course, that my comment was directly in relation to this forum? And now you trip off along the line of pointless personal insult again, forgetting the context in which that comment was offered.

Also, just to point out, citing to the ADL is not an argument from authority, but an appeal to authority, in this case. The ADL is an authority, no doubt, on the past actions of Rauf and others, but that authority does not extend into the futire use of a mosque that has not been built yet. Like you, they have concerns.

Interesting: concerns. Are they bigots also, Panda? Why or why not?

I on the other hand, merely call 'em as I see 'em.

Which is the problem; both your limited comprehension and in setting false standards for yourself.

At the same time you have also said that no mosque should be built on that site and that you are "undecided" on questions of what other aspects of Islam may exist in that area. That first position is inconsistent wit the latter two.

Your attempted logical construct is absolutely, definably, false: these two positions are not in conflict, except to the myopic. I suggest you leave logical construction to me. Secondly, you assert that I think "no" mosque should be built on that site, without either citing the qualification I give that opinion, or that arising in any of our previous discussion. This is, again, disingenuous.

What you fail to engage with is the reality that suspicion only is not sufficient moral or legal grounds to deny anyone fundamental rights, unless it rises to a very high level--and your evidence is no where near that.

This is another area in which reasonability fails you: what I am asking for is a review of Mr. Rauf - as I've mentioned several times now - rather than outright ban. This is not a subtle difference. You are, again, attributing an opinion to me that you want me to have, because it would save you the trouble of introspection, or consideration.

Some interesting miscomprehensions here:

You might as well argue that he should be arrested based on your suspicions alone

Why not say "the ADL's suspicions alone"? Or why not use proper English and say "suspicion alone"? The entire sentence is a strawman. I skipped the case of attribution that followed also, since it was irrelevant.

What's a serious basis? Evidence that would allow the state to step in and curtail his freedom, because only the State may do that. Your side has no legitimate power to deny him a single right.

This above was the interesting one: I bolded the best part. Where have I argued that any body other that the State may so do, exactly? I would like you to find this statement; what you're inferring - again - is that I am seeking is a lynch mob. It's an immoral inference, Panda: I think you know this, but you need reminding sometimes.

Reading comprehension is a skill you need to master. Thanks for this straw man though, as I never said what you are suggesting.

As a matter of fact, you did. You have a tendency to leap past the intermediate stages of any argument, and then turn around and lash out when someone points them out.

For your benefit:

1) You raised a counter hypothetical regarding my finding child porn in Paul's mail.

Wrong. Reading comprehension is a skill you need to master. I said "you think you saw some child pornography" in his mail, not that you found it with certainty. Again: you leap past all the intermediate steps and right to conclusion: nothing about Rauf is suspicious or deserves further investigation, you must be opposing this mosque because you hate Muslims, you must be about to riot against the mosque, you are adamantly opposed to the presence of any mosque, rather than being conflicted about it from a sense of taste - I could go on.

2) That is "smoking gun evidence" that a crime has in fact already been committed.

Only if you had found it, Panda: say if it was already confiscated. I outlined a case of suspicion, which I thought would justify further investigation.

3) On that basis, my neighbor Paul can be arrested. No investigation is required...he can immediately be arrested based on the child porn alone. That arrest is a denial of one of Paul's fundamental rights, and is based on the antecedent actus reus of his having received the child porn.

Actually, to use your very narrow construction of the arguments thus far - which are not actually un-useful, in point of fact - you would require the intervention of an outside party; namely, the police. This is an accurate representation of our discussions here. You seem to be portraying me as a self-arbiter of justice, but this simply isn't the case.

(There will then be a subsequent investigation, but the right to deny him liberty arises before that is complete based on the overwhelming strength of the "smoking gun" evidence.)

And, in our real-world case, Rauf could have been denied the right to build, or had an injunction laid against the start of the build, by any interested body with sufficient support or interest. Is an injunction a denial of liberty, or a legitimate part of legal process? You're still portraying this like some ABC after-school special, complete with waving flags and grumpy, outraged speechmakers.

5) You have no such powerful evidence of an antecedent crime. NO SMOKING GUN.

Actually, there's a number of articles about Rauf's questionable associations, to say nothing of the questionable tack he takes on 9/11 in the book he released in Malaysia.

In the mean time, why don't you call be a liar who uses weasel words some more, and then whine and cry that *I* use ad hominem arguments.

Panda, when you start calling people "bigots" because they present reasoned arguments against your case, it's too late to point fingers. You have attempted to paint me in that manner since the very start of the debate; this is not indicative of a right-minded individual trying to conduct a fair discussion. You wonder why I insult you, after what you've been doing all along? You turned what I was attempting to keep civil into a flamewar; don't even make witticisms about sitting on a high horse in this. If you've been paying attention, you might notice that I don't have to resort to straw man arguments, false attribution, or demonization; although I will certainly respond in kind on the latter.

 

[GeoffP]

well not so much gain as maintain the current monopoly on influencing US middle eastern policy. Unless you honestly believe that having groups actually give a view other than ISr5ael is good is good for jewish lobbying groups.

So the interdiction of the mosque is tied to the support of Israel?

 

[pjdude1219]

So the interdiction of the mosque is tied to the support of Israel?

No I think its more do to blind hate fostered by jewish and christian right groups.

 

[Bells]

You really need to learn how to debate. You raise arguments and then object when they are answered on the terms in which you raised them, then call you opponents unfounded names (unlike the description of you as a bigot, which is well earned).

I'm disingenuous? You are delusional.....

:worship:

:bravo:

You sir, are a master! And have a lot more patience than I do. Then again, for me, this has been a few years now and I have given up. But that post was magnificent!


However a word of caution. There will come a point where bashing your head with a brick will make more sense than trying to debate him (I say "trying" for obvious reasons), it might even be more enjoyable. I would suggest padding your forehead when such an event arises. I found it helps.

 

[GeoffP]

Bells: it was asinine, in that it resembled the tacks you take with me, except that Panda didn't compound his illogic with racism/bigotry. (He did spell "your" incorrectly, though.)

Funny tho. Didn't you accuse me of mindless cheerleading at some point earlier? How's the "disengagement" going?

 

[cosmictraveler]

I'm glad they got what they wanted and within a few years no one will be talking about this at all probably even less time. It is just that I would think that they would have wanted to make less of a sensation as they have but then again it wasn't the Muslims it was the MEDIA that sensationalized everything once again.