"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:00:05 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


As you say, res ipsa loquitur -- "the thing speaks for itself." If you
take
insult, you must feel there's something insulting about the act. That fact
speaks for itself. But you have not, and apparently will not, tell us what
you think the insult IS.

Assuming that you really don't understand, I'll try to explain.

This must be a weekend for syllogistic deductionism, drawn from false
premises. First Dan, now Don. g


An atrocity was committed at ground zero in the name of Islam by Al
Q'aeda. You knew that. Everybody knows that.

When you say "committed in the name of Islam," what that means, in terms of
actual behavior, is that the terrorists claimed to be acting on behalf of
(their version of) Islam. "In the name of" is an abstraction that could mean
any of a variety of behaviors. Let's be clear about the facts so we don't
fall into the deductionist trap, Ok?


If Muslim Americans decry the terrorist acts of Al Q'aeda, they've
certainly not been vocal about it since 2001.

I remember reading quite a bit of it not long after the event. It appears to
me that you either dismissed it, didn't listen to it, or didn't believe it.

There have been a few
squeaks and peeps but mostly silence that implies consent.

Silence implies nothing, unless you don't believe in the Fifth Amendment,
either. In this case, it suggests to me that ordinary Muslims are just
trying to keep their heads down.


There are definitely some who associate Islam with the atrocity of
9/11, particularly those personally affected. Duh!

Of course. There are weak and suspicious minds all over the world.


You say that such association as a generality is wrong, though
neither you nor the Muslims offer any significant evidence to that
effect.

Unless you believe in guilt until innocence is proven, all you have is the
claim of the terrorists, and the fact that Al Queda has tried to hijack the
authority of Islam. Whether it's true or not is something that neither you,
nor I, nor nearly all other Americans know or understand.

Even if it is incorrect, perhaps you hold that the views
of these affected Americans deserve no respect.

They deserve respect. They also deserve scrutiny. People who have been
subject to such horrifying events have strong emotions, and they have little
to do with principle or rationality. They've been hit hard, and they should
have our deferrence on many things, but not on how to evaluate Muslims in
general. They're inherently unreliable on that subject because of the
extreme emotional stress to which they've been subjected.


I've seen no rationale for building an Islamic center two blocks from
ground zero vs elsewhere.

I've related what they've said, that the object was to be present at this
important site with a message of mutual understanding and opposition to
terrorist acts. Apparently you don't believe them. Either that, or you
aren't listening.


I've seen no comment as to how building the Islamic center elsewhere
would be any sort of compromise or sacrifice for the Muslims.

See above.


Since there is no reason not to build elsewhere and no rationale for
building there, then persisting on this course in spite of the fact
that a majority of New Yorkers (per your stats) find it offensive is
flagrant disrespect. Flagrant disrespect is an insult.

That's syllogistic deductionism based upon false premises. The false premise
begins with the fact that you're not listening to, or not accepting, the
rationale they've presented. Thus, when they "persist on this course," you
don't "see the reason" because you don't accept or believe their reason they
claim for the course they've taken. As for why a majority of New Yorkers
want it moved to another site, you're assuming that the truth is a matter of
majority opinion. Clearly it is not. In 1959, 60% of Americans believed that
no one should own handguns except for police and other "authorized persons":

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123596/in...-gun-laws.aspx

Were they right because they were a majority? I don't think you agree with
them.


The muslims can do this per 1st amendment, so they will whether the
citizens of New York like it or not and **** 'em if they can't take
a joke.

Remember that the next time you defend the rights of a minority.


You can't see the insult here?

What I see is a country (ours) in which taking offense has become so
ingrained that both sides, left and right, leap to it as a primary defense
for self-serving positions on almost everything. Because you or the
survivors of 9/11 are "offended" by Islam, for the sole reason that some
terrorists claim to be representing the "true" Islam, all other Muslims
should cower away and avoid anything that someone might find offensive,
either because the offended ones believe that their emotions take precedence
over others' or because they don't understand the offending party and
therefore are suspicious of them.

When you remark that you haven't heard sufficient rejection of the
terrorists by Muslims to satisfy your sense of propriety, I consider that
the natural reaction of people in a situation like that is to hunker down
and not draw attention to themselves. For example, I don't recall hearing
the US Catholic community decrying the IRA during the troubles in Northern
Ireland. I do remember, however, a number of New England Irish Catholics
being indicted for soliciting money for the IRA. I don't recall any anti-IRA
Catholic rallies in the US.

Likewise, now that we know about the Pederast Priest of the Month Club, do
you hear much from the general Catholic population about it? Some leaders
speak up, but that's the same thing that's happening with Muslims. Plenty of
US Muslim leaders have condemned Al Queda, which you choose not to hear. You
can Google their many comments about the subject.

There's no avoiding that you've painted all Muslims with the same brush and
believe that all Muslims should assume guilt for 9/11. Otherwise, there's
nothing about the Cordoba House that could be taken as an insult or an
offense. You've never answered the question, and probably won't, about why
these Muslims should avoid the Ground Zero area if the reason isn't that
you've indicted them for some association with the terrorists. And that's
because you can't, without acknowledging that this is exactly what you're
doing.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sep 4, 12:12*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


This must be a weekend for syllogistic deductionism, drawn from false
premises. First Dan, now Don. g




Ed Huntress

Exactly what are you talking about with regard to me and syllegistic
deductionism? What false premise? I expect it is you who is out in
left field, but with just a sly comment and no reference to anything,
I can not refute your statement.

Dan

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 12:12:52 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:00:05 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


As you say, res ipsa loquitur -- "the thing speaks for itself." If you
take
insult, you must feel there's something insulting about the act. That fact
speaks for itself. But you have not, and apparently will not, tell us what
you think the insult IS.

Assuming that you really don't understand, I'll try to explain.

This must be a weekend for syllogistic deductionism, drawn from false
premises.

snipped

Your points are all excellent and well-written as usual, but my
prediction is that Don will continue to argue his transparent charade
of just-trying-to-be-reasonable-and-peaceful, even though he showed
his true colors earlier. And I'm thinking that we didn't hear the half
of it. Good luck dealing with someone that insincere and evasive. Look
for him to start a thread some time later, in which he'll say that he
was on a walk and became frightened by somebody "who looked like he
might be a Muslim... good thing I was armed and could show him that
I'm not going to change my way of life because of terrorists". :-)

Wayne

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 12:12:52 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:00:05 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


As you say, res ipsa loquitur -- "the thing speaks for itself." If you
take
insult, you must feel there's something insulting about the act. That
fact
speaks for itself. But you have not, and apparently will not, tell us
what
you think the insult IS.

Assuming that you really don't understand, I'll try to explain.

This must be a weekend for syllogistic deductionism, drawn from false
premises.

snipped

Your points are all excellent and well-written as usual, but my
prediction is that Don will continue to argue his transparent charade
of just-trying-to-be-reasonable-and-peaceful, even though he showed
his true colors earlier. And I'm thinking that we didn't hear the half
of it. Good luck dealing with someone that insincere and evasive.

FWIW, I don't think that most Americans are going to answer that question
forthrightly, because it's very un-PC (not to say a violation of one of our
key social principles) to say you assume guilt by religious association. It
just isn't done, except among bottom-feeders and white trash. So these
discussions devolve into an evasive two-step.

Look
for him to start a thread some time later, in which he'll say that he
was on a walk and became frightened by somebody "who looked like he
might be a Muslim... good thing I was armed and could show him that
I'm not going to change my way of life because of terrorists". :-)

Wayne

There's plenty of sophistry on tap these days. If anyone cared to get upset
about it, he could occupy himself on this NG full-time. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 18:04:18 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 12:12:52 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:00:05 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


As you say, res ipsa loquitur -- "the thing speaks for itself." If you
take
insult, you must feel there's something insulting about the act. That
fact
speaks for itself. But you have not, and apparently will not, tell us
what
you think the insult IS.

Assuming that you really don't understand, I'll try to explain.

This must be a weekend for syllogistic deductionism, drawn from false
premises.

snipped

Your points are all excellent and well-written as usual, but my
prediction is that Don will continue to argue his transparent charade
of just-trying-to-be-reasonable-and-peaceful, even though he showed
his true colors earlier. And I'm thinking that we didn't hear the half
of it. Good luck dealing with someone that insincere and evasive.

FWIW, I don't think that most Americans are going to answer that question
forthrightly, because it's very un-PC (not to say a violation of one of our
key social principles) to say you assume guilt by religious association. It
just isn't done,

.... and yet he and cavelamb and gummer and some others I can't recall,
have all done it.

except among bottom-feeders and white trash. So these
discussions devolve into an evasive two-step.

Two-step? Try Michael Flatley working his way through a bushel of
No-Doz. :-)

Wayne

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 12:12:52 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Assuming that you really don't understand, I'll try to explain.

This must be a weekend for syllogistic deductionism, drawn from false
premises. First Dan, now Don. g


An atrocity was committed at ground zero in the name of Islam by Al
Q'aeda. You knew that. Everybody knows that.

When you say "committed in the name of Islam," what that means, in terms of
actual behavior, is that the terrorists claimed to be acting on behalf of
(their version of) Islam. "In the name of" is an abstraction that could mean
any of a variety of behaviors. Let's be clear about the facts so we don't
fall into the deductionist trap, Ok?

They claimed whatever they claimed. Use the Wikipedia article on Al
Q'aeda if you prefer.


If Muslim Americans decry the terrorist acts of Al Q'aeda, they've
certainly not been vocal about it since 2001.

I remember reading quite a bit of it not long after the event. It appears to
me that you either dismissed it, didn't listen to it, or didn't believe it.

But we're not hearing it now and haven't for some time.

There have been a few
squeaks and peeps but mostly silence that implies consent.

Silence implies nothing, unless you don't believe in the Fifth Amendment,
either. In this case, it suggests to me that ordinary Muslims are just
trying to keep their heads down.

By building an Islamic center 2 blocks from ground zero. Tawk about
low profile!


There are definitely some who associate Islam with the atrocity of
9/11, particularly those personally affected. Duh!

Of course. There are weak and suspicious minds all over the world.


You say that such association as a generality is wrong, though
neither you nor the Muslims offer any significant evidence to that
effect.

Unless you believe in guilt until innocence is proven, all you have is the
claim of the terrorists, and the fact that Al Queda has tried to hijack the
authority of Islam. Whether it's true or not is something that neither you,
nor I, nor nearly all other Americans know or understand.

Nice feint, Ed. I said " there are definitely some who associate..."
that you dismiss as having weak and suspicious minds. I stipulated
that you say such association may be wrong, but nobody offers any
significant evidence to that effect. Said absence of evidence has
nothing to do with what I believe or what the terrorists claim. If
you don't know either and nearly all Americans don't know or
understand, how about stepping aside and letting the poor
misunderstood Muslims step up and clear things up by actively working
against terrorism and Al Q'aeda?


Even if it is incorrect, perhaps you hold that the views
of these affected Americans deserve no respect.

They deserve respect. They also deserve scrutiny. People who have been
subject to such horrifying events have strong emotions, and they have little
to do with principle or rationality. They've been hit hard, and they should
have our deferrence on many things, but not on how to evaluate Muslims in
general. They're inherently unreliable on that subject because of the
extreme emotional stress to which they've been subjected.

Then building an Islamic symbol two blocks from ground zero exhibits
incredibly callous disregard for the emotional stress, when it could
just as well have a different, less "loaded" address.

I've seen no rationale for building an Islamic center two blocks from
ground zero vs elsewhere.

I've related what they've said, that the object was to be present at this
important site with a message of mutual understanding and opposition to
terrorist acts. Apparently you don't believe them. Either that, or you
aren't listening.

I don't believe them. Ignoring the expressed feelings of a majority
of New Yorkers about that important site hardly suggest quest for a
message of mutual understanding and opposition to terrorist acts. A
much more plausible gesture would be to begin their process of
reaching out by respecting these sentiments and begin building their
bridge of understanding at a more neutral, less "loaded" address.


I've seen no comment as to how building the Islamic center elsewhere
would be any sort of compromise or sacrifice for the Muslims.

See above.

You mean "at this important site"? And how exactly does presence at
that important site convey a message of..., particularly when it's
clear that a majority of New Yorkers feel quite the contrary? Who is
this "message of understanding" to be addressed to, if not a majority?


Since there is no reason not to build elsewhere and no rationale for
building there, then persisting on this course in spite of the fact
that a majority of New Yorkers (per your stats) find it offensive is
flagrant disrespect. Flagrant disrespect is an insult.

That's syllogistic deductionism based upon false premises. The false premise
begins with the fact that you're not listening to, or not accepting, the
rationale they've presented.

Only way that's true is if you assert that I am wrong in not believing
them. I've presented my rationale for not believing them, you offer
no evidence to the contrary than one sentence of spin from the Imam.

Thus, when they "persist on this course," you
don't "see the reason" because you don't accept or believe their reason they
claim for the course they've taken.

Correct. I don't believe them.

As for why a majority of New Yorkers
want it moved to another site, you're assuming that the truth is a matter of
majority opinion.

I make no such assumption. I'm a scientist. Truth is true regardless
of how many or few might comprehend it. So what?

Right or wrong, true or not, majority opinion counts in a democracy.
Why a majority wants the Islamic center moved is irrelevant. Fact
is, they do. A "message of mutual understanding" that ignores the
clear feelings of the majority obviously doesn't care about mutual
understanding at all. So I don't believe them. Mutual cuts both
ways.


You can't see the insult here?

What I see is a country (ours) in which taking offense has become so
ingrained that both sides, left and right, leap to it as a primary defense
for self-serving positions on almost everything. Because you or the
survivors of 9/11 are "offended" by Islam, for the sole reason that some
terrorists claim to be representing the "true" Islam, all other Muslims
should cower away and avoid anything that someone might find offensive,
either because the offended ones believe that their emotions take precedence
over others' or because they don't understand the offending party and
therefore are suspicious of them.

Ready to come back and focus after that little side trip?

When you remark that you haven't heard sufficient rejection of the
terrorists by Muslims to satisfy your sense of propriety, I consider that
the natural reaction of people in a situation like that is to hunker down
and not draw attention to themselves.

Well, Ed, ya can't have it both ways. It ain't my sense of
propriety, it's credibility that's at issue here. If they'd truely
like to be understood then they'll have to stand up and show some
desire to understand too. "Mutual" cuts both ways. Thus far, in
spite of the Imam's PR spin, looks to me and a majority of New Yorkers
they don't give a **** about understanding or gettin' along in NYC and
America. I would love for them to show otherwise, but it's up to them
to do that. You can't do it for them.

Likewise, now that we know about the Pederast Priest of the Month Club, do
you hear much from the general Catholic population about it? Some leaders
speak up, but that's the same thing that's happening with Muslims. Plenty of
US Muslim leaders have condemned Al Queda, which you choose not to hear. You
can Google their many comments about the subject.

I don't ****ing care, Ed! This isn't about me! The subject here
is how residents of NYC feel about an Islamic center near ground zero,
and the credibility of a stated "quest for mutual understanding" that
ignores the feelings of a majority of NYC residents.

The majority of New Yorkers apparantly haven't Googled on the subject
either. If the Muslims truely seek mutual understanding, they'll
need to come out of the woodwork. If they can only be found by Google
search, they're not credible and certainly not effective.

There's no avoiding that you've painted all Muslims with the same brush and
believe that all Muslims should assume guilt for 9/11.

I've not painted anyone anything, but paint me as you will.

Otherwise, there's
nothing about the Cordoba House that could be taken as an insult or an
offense. You've never answered the question, and probably won't, about why
these Muslims should avoid the Ground Zero area if the reason isn't that
you've indicted them for some association with the terrorists.

I think I've answered and explained that quite thoroughly more than
once. Perhaps you're unable to understand it because you see
things from the perspective of a docent in sterile ivory-tower
idealistic isolation.

On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 01:52:53 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

I'm a scientist.

LOL

Truth is true regardless
of how many or few might comprehend it.

You got that part right, but to quote the character Nathan R Jessep...

I don't ****ing care, Ed!

Exactly. A few of the things you don't care about.

1. Watering down the first when it suits you, while claiming that you
aren't doing that.
2. Doing what the terrorists accuse you of, and handing them a free
recruitment issue.
3. Fueling gingrich and palin, a prospect which woulda' shut you up a
long time ago if you were smart enough to grasp the implications, or
care about them.

This isn't about me!

It's all about your selfish insistence on putting your misconceptions
ahead of common sense.

Perhaps you're unable to understand it because you see
things from the perspective of a docent in sterile ivory-tower
idealistic isolation.

Ah, those damned "elitists" again, eh? How dare they refuse to accept
your alternate reality!

Wayne

On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 01:52:53 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 12:12:52 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Don said:
If Muslim Americans decry the terrorist acts of Al Q'aeda, they've
certainly not been vocal about it since 2001.

I remember reading quite a bit of it not long after the event. It appears to
me that you either dismissed it, didn't listen to it, or didn't believe it.

But we're not hearing it now and haven't for some time.

There have been a few
squeaks and peeps but mostly silence that implies consent.

Silence implies nothing, unless you don't believe in the Fifth Amendment,
either. In this case, it suggests to me that ordinary Muslims are just
trying to keep their heads down.

By building an Islamic center 2 blocks from ground zero. Tawk about
low profile!

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/ for today, the 5th. Priceless.

(wee snip)

I think I've answered and explained that quite thoroughly more than
once. Perhaps you're unable to understand it because you see
things from the perspective of a docent in sterile ivory-tower
idealistic isolation.

And you know how Ed looooooves idealists...

--
Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy
simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.
-- Storm Jameson