CANADIEN Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 Oh well...nobody could ream of accusing you of being in favour of freedom of speech and freedom to protest. As I expected... I set a trap and you fall right into it, making a fool of yourself... not the first and last time you do it, News to you. Disagreeing with hate-mongerers, ignorant and idiots and saying that what they so and do is morally offensive is NOT opposing thier freedom of speech or their right to protest. Like it or not, your freedom of speech includes the freedom to be spoken against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 Sorry, but I can't fix the voices in your head; you need more help to "correct" that than I can give you here. Seriously. All you did was make up dialog to support your claim. It proves nothing. I can just as easily make up dialog to support mine, but I won't be wasting my time doing that. Either you get it, or you don't; and from what I've seen, you don't even try to understand anything that doesn't support your views. it's representative dialog... if you're a family member of Muslims killed during 9/11. It's easy for you to dispatch... anything that doesn't support your views - hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 (edited) it's representative dialog... if you're a family member of Muslims killed during 9/11. It's easy for you to dispatch... anything that doesn't support your views - hey? The point is, in case you truly missed it, anyone could make up any number of "representatives dialogs" ... to represent any view they'd care to take. The key words there are "make up." And in case it's still escaping you, that made up dialog would not "represent" what the protest is "essentially about." Only peoples' actual reasons for protesting it represents that. Edited September 11, 2010 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 Fantastic post. I agree. It was one of the best strawman arguments I've seen posted in a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 I am not as sure as you are on that. What I am sure though is that Al-Quaeda benefits more from anything they can pass out as exemples of Western intolerence than from the opposite. Thats true, but so far I dont think AQ is doing very well here. The whole process regarding this Mosque has been done peacefully and in accordance with the rule of law. Theres been a couple of tiny protests that have been peacefull. Just aint much to see here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 my crack research staff has been attempting to help you out; however, they've come up empty. Perhaps you could advise why the U.S. Government would aid & abet the guy you label as an exploiter... Because he is useful for them. Your inability to grasp this very simple concept speaks volumes about you. they've sponsored Rauf on 3 extensive trips through the middle-East, as far back as 2007. Since you've now moved the scale forward and speak of "proof", perhaps you could step-up your game and bring forward the "proof", as you say, that supports your exploitation labeling. in the absence of your presented proof, my response to your exploitation labeling is: that's ridiculous. Rauf himself says that this location is an important part of his message due to its link to 9/11. Therefore, he's exploiting 9/11 to spread his message. QED. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 Disagreeing with hate-mongerers, ignorant and idiots and saying that what they so and do is morally offensive is NOT opposing thier freedom of speech or their right to protest. News to you. The vast majority of people who are opposed to the mosque aren't hate-mongers, ignorants and idiots. Just like the vast majority of Muslims aren't terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 I agree. It was one of the best strawman arguments I've seen posted in a while. For someone who has problems grasping basic concepts, I wouldn't expect you to be able to spot a straw man argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 "So, did Islam kill my daughter?" "Yes." "Well, I'm a Muslim. So you are saying that my religion, my beliefs, my 'ideology' killed my daughter." Muslim daughters killed by Muslim ideology? Gee, that would be a first! -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 Because he is useful for them. Your inability to grasp this very simple concept speaks volumes about you. Rauf himself says that this location is an important part of his message due to its link to 9/11. Therefore, he's exploiting 9/11 to spread his message. QED. -k So what? Everybody and their uncle freaking Pete exploits 911 to spread their message or make their political points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 Because he is useful for them. Your inability to grasp this very simple concept speaks volumes about you. Rauf himself says that this location is an important part of his message due to its link to 9/11. Therefore, he's exploiting 9/11 to spread his message. QED. -k Trying to spread a message of peace and tolerance is exploiting 9/11, eh? For what reasons is he exploiting it and what is so wrong with his message? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 News to you. The vast majority of people who are opposed to the mosque aren't hate-mongers, ignorants and idiots. Just like the vast majority of Muslims aren't terrorists. Anybody here who claims to know whats in the minds of those opposing this project is just guessing. Id would wager that reasons for opposition run the entire gambit. Some oppose it out of reverence to the 911 site, or the "911 Families". Some oppose it because they think it sends the wrong message. Some oppose it because because they just flat out dont like Muslims, or Islam. There isnt enough information available to profile this demographic. Also we havent even established who it is we are talking about here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machjo Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 Muslim daughters killed by Muslim ideology? Gee, that would be a first! -k So are you saying that all Christians, every single one of them, support killing abortion doctors? The same applies here. Your brush is way too wide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 Muslim daughters killed by Muslim ideology? According to the voices in his head, the dialog he wrote, "yes." Gee, that would be a first! Be that as it may, it's "what the protest is essentially about." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 So are you saying that all Christians, every single one of them, support killing abortion doctors? How many people have been killed by Islamic terrorists vs doctors killed by Christians? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 (edited) Anybody here who claims to know whats in the minds of those opposing this project is just guessing. Id would wager that reasons for opposition run the entire gambit. Some oppose it out of reverence to the 911 site, or the "911 Families". Some oppose it because they think it sends the wrong message. Some oppose it because because they just flat out dont like Muslims, or Islam. There isnt enough information available to profile this demographic. Also we havent even established who it is we are talking about here. I agree. There are always many reasons, even sometimes opposing ones within the same demographic, in any issue that sparks large-scale public interest. Edited September 11, 2010 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machjo Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 Anybody here who claims to know whats in the minds of those opposing this project is just guessing. Id would wager that reasons for opposition run the entire gambit. Some oppose it out of reverence to the 911 site, or the "911 Families". Including the Muslim families? Or just the non-Muslim 911 families? Some oppose it because they think it sends the wrong message. What? That we don't blame all Muslims. Terrible. Some oppose it because because they just flat out dont like Muslims, or Islam. Wel, if they refuse to acknowledge the Muslim 911 families, and hate the message that we don't blame all Muslims, then Bingo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 Because he is useful for them. Your inability to grasp this very simple concept speaks volumes about you. then why so hesitant... just say you believe the U.S. government is sanctioning your labeled exploiter! Rauf himself says that this location is an important part of his message due to its link to 9/11. Therefore, he's exploiting 9/11 to spread his message. QED. hey now! Perhaps there are different kinds of 'kimmy exploitation'. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.” “We want to push back against the extremists,” added Imam Feisal is this the 'good kind' of kimmy labeled exploitation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 Trying to spread a message of peace and tolerance is exploiting 9/11, eh? That his message may be laudable does not alter that he is, indeed, exploiting 9/11 to spread it. For what reasons is he exploiting it and what is so wrong with his message? If his message is peace and coexistence, then I think it's a fine message. If his message is "Islamic Dawa from the Rubble of the World Trade Center", then I feel little reason to think highly of it. "Come for the swimming pool, and stay for the sermon!" Yippee. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machjo Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 About the only legitimate argument against the Mosque is that it could put some Muslims at risk of retribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 News to you. The vast majority of people who are opposed to the mosque aren't hate-mongers, ignorants and idiots. Just like the vast majority of Muslims aren't terrorists. And news to you. I have never said that was the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 then why so hesitant... just say you believe the U.S. government is sanctioning your labeled exploiter! I think she already has said that. Sanctioning out of convenience. Are you seriously this dense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 That his message may be laudable does not alter that he is, indeed, exploiting 9/11 to spread it. If his message is peace and coexistence, then I think it's a fine message. If his message is "Islamic Dawa from the Rubble of the World Trade Center", then I feel little reason to think highly of it. "Come for the swimming pool, and stay for the sermon!" Yippee. so... there are different kinds of 'kimmy exploitation', after all. Since you applied the label... since you brought forward a proof attachment... which of these is the 'kimmy exploitation' you applied to Rauf... and where is your proof - hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machjo Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 How many people have been killed by Islamic terrorists vs doctors killed by Christians? Doctors? None. 'Negroes'... surprise. None! These acts go against everything the Christian Faith stands for. Now how many doctors and blacks have been killed by self-professed Christians? Many. The KKK considered itself Christian too. How many died in the civil war? Oh, history, I'm sorry. Well, just as the Christian Faith had gone through its dark age (and some are still in it), so Islam is now experiencing its, unfortunately. We still cannot blame the religion itself, but rather the way some adherents choose to corrupt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 11, 2010 Report Share Posted September 11, 2010 If his message is peace and coexistence, then I think it's a fine message. The problem is, no matter how fine the message, if it's the right message at the wrong place and time, it it could very likely do more harm than good; and that appears to be what's happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.