So what are the non-bigoted reasons against the mosque?

I can understand being like, "Hmmm, given people's attitudes, that's kinda a funny spot to put a mosque." Or, "Man, I bet there's gonna be a bit of a brouhaha outside that mosque for a while."

But I can't think of any reason or concern that would actually make me oppose somebody's right to build their mosque where they want. So what are the reasons?

8/26/2010 1:09:01 AM

And obviously I'm looking for serious reasons related to this particular mosque.

Not hypothetical ones about it possibly being an underground terrorist bootcamp that's cloning Justin Beiber or something.

8/26/2010 2:16:46 AM

Quote :

"At any rate, there are those that disagree with building the mosque near Ground Zero that are not bigots--I'm one of them."

Sorry to break it to you hooks, but many people on this board would have little issue placing you firmly in the "bigot" category, on this or some other argument. Not that you care....


As for the argument you want to make with regards to the thread topic, when you say you "disagree with" building the mosque there, are you saying something along the lines of "I think that's in bad taste/I think that's probably a bad idea/I don't really like that they're doing that" or are you saying something like "I think someone (government or private citizens) should stop them from building that there"? Sorry if you've answered this before, but I'm not reading through an entire thread that can be thoroughly concluded by simply agreeing to follow the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

If it's the former stance, I can agree that you're not really a bigot... it's just pretty much irrelevant as it doesn't suggest that any sort of action be taken. A passive enough stance to allow the mosque to be built, despite disagreements. Through inaction, it has the same results as the people who don't mind the mosque-building would have.

On the other hand, anyone who claims the latter stance is very unambiguously un-American, bigoted, hypocritical, or any combination of the three. One cannot affirm the validity of the Constitution and still suggest that someone prevent a mosque from being built on private property in the remains of a Burlington Coat Factory (at least not without one being bigoted and/or hypocritical).

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 3:09 AM. Reason : Hell, let's add xenophobic to the list, too... that kind of goes along with the bigotry though.]


Edit: For the record, hooks, I'm not calling you a bigot. I've made a pair of if-then statements to assess whether or not I think you're bigoted based on your answer to the question in the second paragraph.

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 3:13 AM. Reason : .]

8/26/2010 3:05:02 AM

Quote :

"can't think of any reason or concern that would actually make me oppose somebody's right to build their mosque where they want. So what are the reasons?"

cause the Muslims never cried when Ol Yeller died

and they ain't washed in the Blood of the Lamb.

they don't ever stand up for the Star Spangled Banner

and not a one of them's a John Wayne fan








[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 3:10 AM. Reason : ]

8/26/2010 3:07:46 AM

I continue to want a figure for how far away it is acceptable to put a Mosque. Apparently two blocks isn't far enough. How about 3? 4? 12? Does it have to be far enough away that you can't see the (still hypothetical) new tower from the mosque?

8/26/2010 4:02:56 AM

10,486 miles.

8/26/2010 8:57:19 AM

Man held without bail in NYC cab driver stabbing

Quote :

"NEW YORK -- A college student who did volunteer work in Afghanistan was charged Wednesday with slashing a taxi driver's neck and face after the driver said he's Muslim. A criminal complaint alleges Michael Enright uttered an Arabic greeting and told the driver, "Consider this a checkpoint," before the brutal bias attack occurred Tuesday night inside the yellow cab on Manhattan's East Side. Police say Enright was drunk at the time. ... Enright volunteered for Intersections International, a group that promotes interfaith dialogue and has supported plans for an Islamic center and mosque two blocks from ground zero. "

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i5OdR6FH4zsmEVanHGR0y-jbOzngD9HQTM400

Some thoughts:

I hope this little toad gets the maximum sentence.

So much for interfaith dialogue.

When did "bias attack" enter the English vocabulary?

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 9:24 AM. Reason : ]

8/26/2010 9:21:42 AM

Quote :

"I'm saying "How do you form an educated opinion on many public issues without at least a cursory knowledge of statistics?""

And I do have a cursory knowledge of statistics. Here's what I think happened: you started throwing out some big words, expecting that you'd confuse everyone and we'd be thoroughly convinced that you really were smarter than everybody. You didn't think anyone would call you out on your bullshit.

Quote :

"These limitations are computational in nature. They get solved as we improve our methods and the machines we deploy these methods on. Sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about."

What you're talking about has been the subject of science fiction for at least a century. You know, a computer so powerful that it can model any scenario and answer any question. There is no such thing as luck, and everything in the universe does exactly as physical laws dictate that it should. Humans don't have any real "free will," our behavior is purely the result of chemicals interacting and outside stimuli. You could, theoretically, have a computer capable of predicting the future, in all aspects, if we had enough of an understanding of the physical world to model it.

Where you go wrong is thinking that we're anywhere close to being able to do that. We aren't. You wrote this off a couple of pages ago, but the point still stands. Your position on this is basically, "yeah, we almost know everything now." How naive can you be?

Quote :

"You sure can if you're remotely empirical about either legality or morality."

Can you support this statement at all? There's a way to statistically, logically, or mathematically determine is something is acceptable human behavior, without making some serious assumptions, which are likely to be subjective in nature?

Quote :

"The prevailing opinion in contemporary philosophy is that you're dead wrong."

lol

8/26/2010 11:04:31 AM

Non-bigoted reasons for opposing the mosque:

-concerns about the code-worthiness of the planned renovations
-traffic and noise
-effect on property values
-discovery of an ancient Indian burial-ground beneath the plot



...oh, and unilaterally opposing any and all forms of spirituality

8/26/2010 11:18:59 AM

^Yeah, I agree the first three items are things to be concerned about with any construction project. The last one obviously doesn't fly--religious freedom is extraordinarily important to all of us (especially the non-religious).

This is a dirty business we're talking about...city zoning/construction permits/whatnot...so I can see some compelling, juicy details coming out there. But it isn't apparent to me yet that those concerns are great enough/evidenced enough to put a stop to this particular project.

And, given the dirtiness of this business, I don't know how we can reasonably apply precedent to this mosque. For instance, I bet I could find a wealthy, politically connected neighborhood that got construction on a huge mega church shut down based on traffic/noise concerns. But that doesn't mean we can shut down this mosque.

We gotta weigh it all out...and what has now become a symbol of a number of our freedoms is more important than any construction/development politics.

8/26/2010 12:21:06 PM

8/26/2010 12:25:12 PM

What's the problem?

I thought I did alright with that post.

8/26/2010 12:34:11 PM

Religious freedom includes our right to oppose religion. When you ask "what are non-bigoted reasons against this mosque?" you didn't ask, "what are non-bigoted reasons to prevent by force of law the building of this mosque?". You can oppose the mosque without opposing their right to exist. Even a lot of the Christians who are against this mosque don't oppose their right to exist, only that they ought not to build there. Of course some are Christians who think all Muslims are terrorists.

As an aside about "religious freedom", it's past the time where we should stop respecting mysticism at any rate. Why does religion get a pass but Astrology, fairies, moon landing conspiracies, etc. get their deserved ridicule? It's certainly not because religion is less damaging to society than any of the listed beliefs that don't stand up to skepticism.

8/26/2010 12:45:57 PM

nm, misread

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM. Reason : .]

8/26/2010 12:56:19 PM

Quote :

"disco_stu: Religious freedom includes our right to oppose religion. When you ask "what are non-bigoted reasons against this mosque?" you didn't ask, "what are non-bigoted reasons to prevent by force of law the building of this mosque?"."

I tried my best to ask it that way...

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: But I can't think of any reason or concern that would actually make me oppose somebody's right to build their mosque where they want. So what are the reasons?"

If it helps, I'll ask again: What are some non-bigoted reasons to prevent by force of law the building of the mosque?

Quote :

"disco_stu: You can oppose the mosque without opposing their right to exist. Even a lot of the Christians who are against this mosque don't oppose their right to exist, only that they ought not to build there. Of course some are Christians who think all Muslims are terrorists."

And I'm asking for the reasons of those people. Lumex posted some good ones, but I think we all agree that they're not compelling enough to prevent construction. So, if somebody were to seriously continue with a call to shut down the mosque using one of those reasons, it's safe to assume that something else is motivating them.

I support the people's right to protest whatever they want and the people's right to build their mosque. Obviously, the people aren't just protesting and saying, "Hey, I don't like the way this makes me feel." They're actually trying to get it shut down...

So we're at an impasse. Now we gotta hear all these compelling reasons to shut it down. And, again, we're looking for non-bigoted ones.

8/26/2010 1:26:37 PM

"The Christian Right & the Rise of American Fascism" by BridgetSPK

Quote :

"if you think the religious right arent a bunch of idiots, then youre an idiot."

joe_schmoe

message_topic.aspx?topic=462587

"Atheist Morality superior to Christian Morality" by joe_schmoe

message_topic.aspx?topic=398209

"Christians are insane" by moron

Quote :

"It's the same kind of thing when Christians argue they know they're right because the Bible is the protected word of God, or that God told them something was so. You can't really argue with that, in a way to change their mind. You just have to brush them off as insane."

message_topic.aspx?topic=364442

"Christianity -- man's immortal blunder" by McDanger

Quote :

"How long do you think it’ll be until the poisonous specter of Christianity is shrugged off from an enlightened western world?"

Quote :

"I'd argue that religion such as Christianity is nihilism in itself."

McDanger

message_topic.aspx?topic=412249

Why are some of you Christophobic bigots?

Oh, and there's this:



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014737-503544.html

A majority of Americans don't think that building the mosque near Ground Zero is appropriate--but they support the developers' right to build it! Hardly seems hateful to me.

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 2:49 PM. Reason : Explain yourselves immediately!]

8/26/2010 2:39:17 PM

Awww, I'm offended that I didn't make that list.

I agree with all of the above sentiments and they all easily extend to every other practiced organized religion of the world.

8/26/2010 2:50:01 PM

hrm, i have to disagree with a lot of what i posted here 4 years ago. or at least the inflammatory and sloppy manner which it was expressed. it was a reactionary movement against what was an almost hostile takeover of this forum by religious zealots and other assorted nutjobs at that time.

Look... in and of itself, Christianity is a valid expression of religious belief. as is Islam, Judaism, etc., etc.

Now I'm not religious, but i don't have problem with people's personal choices. It's their business to worship/think/speak as they like. They're enjoying their 1st Amendment right to free expression .

But when one group begins to force THEIR beliefs on OTHERS, a huge problem occurs. They are now violating the 1st Amendment prohibition against interfering with others' right to free expression.

and there IS significant and well-documented examples of the so-called Christian Right, attempting to undermine our country's Constitutional principles and lay the foundation for a theocratic government according to their particular flavor of biblical beliefs and interpretations.

this is a fact. And the parallels between fundamentalist rightwing Christians and fundamentalist Islamic zealots is disturbing. they are both working for the same cause.





[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 3:08 PM. Reason : ]

8/26/2010 2:59:07 PM

AHA, I didn't get any actual quotes listed cause it was just me being sassy/dumb and getting pwned.

But I am very much troubled by Christianity's influence on American politics. And there are things that bother me about Islam and Judaism, too.

The poll results you posted, hooksaw, are heartening!

8/26/2010 4:00:49 PM

^ If you had taken the time to check, you would have seen that the poll results concerning developers having the right to build the mosque in question have been consistent from the beginning of this controversy, Christophobe. And please stop using the word "sassy."

8/26/2010 4:06:27 PM

Quote :

"Now I'm not religious, but i don't have problem with people's personal choices. It's their business to worship/think/speak as they like. They're enjoying their 1st Amendment right to free expression ."

There are problems that come about, even when a religious person doesn't attempt to use force to implement their beliefs. There are plenty of Christians that believe being gay is wrong. They might support someone's right to same sex marriage, and they might even show gay people respect, but on the inside, they think the person is living a perverted lifestyle and is going to burn in Hell. Even when the effects aren't readily observable, it still alters people's perception of reality, and the way they think about others. That's a bad thing, in my opinion.

8/26/2010 4:07:21 PM

^^Instead of checking poll results, I prefer to read arguments about the validity/relevance of Miss USA's faith on TWW.

8/26/2010 4:11:24 PM

i too am encouraged that a 2/3 majority at least recognizes they have the right to build that mosque.

that at least offsets the at the 70% who think there's some kind of "appropriateness test" regarding where a fucking place of worship/activity center can or can't be built.

As if average American Muslims working in those buildings didn't die there too.

As if a Burlington Coat Factory is somehow an appropriate expression on so-called sanctified ground.







[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 4:20 PM. Reason : ]

8/26/2010 4:12:02 PM

Quote :

"Even when the effects aren't readily observable, it still alters people's perception of reality, and the way they think about others. That's a bad thing, in my opinion."

well, i agree but only to a point.

if they're not *acting* on that prejudice against others, if they're not preventing others from enjoying their rights... then you might not like it, you might want to personally avoid them, but you really can't complain.

otherwise you're coming close to criminalizing thoughts.

8/26/2010 4:18:08 PM

^^^ No, you should be checking polls. As I indicated, the poll results concerning developers having the right to build the mosque in question have been consistent from the very beginning of this controversy, Christophobe--despite some demagogues here and elsewhere spreading lies.

^^ And many "average" Muslims also oppose the proposed mosque near Ground Zero. But you and others conveniently ignore that and prefer to guffaw about Miss USA and question her faith.

The building in question was hit by wreckage on 9/11--it was a point of attack, for goodness' sake! Why can't/won't some of you grasp this?

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 4:22 PM. Reason : Why?]

8/26/2010 4:21:45 PM

^^the instant they vote, they're part of the problem. But then that's an action.

8/26/2010 4:31:12 PM

^^Nah, I think I'm gonna stick to lookin at half-naked ladies with pretty drawings on they backs.

But feel free to repeat yourself a third time.


And I think we all understand that the Burlington Coat Factory was damaged in 9/11. We grasp it. But we don't want to legally prevent the construction of a mosque there. You don't want to either, do you? I mean, we are in agreement on that one point, right?

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 4:38 PM. Reason : ]

8/26/2010 4:31:48 PM

^ It's painfully clear that I and most others don't want to "legally prevent" developers from exercising their right to build the mosque in question. I have said from the outset that I would simply ask them, "Please don't."

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 4:53 PM. Reason : MUST SHIFT FOCUS TO BEAUTY QUEEN! ]

8/26/2010 4:35:40 PM

Whether or not you recognize the mosques right to exist: if you have the notion that it's insensitive, you're still a bigot. Associating this mosque with the terrorist acts is the bigotry that is happening across America.

8/26/2010 4:36:12 PM

Oh snaps! Lumex wins.


And I admit I mentally associated the two.

8/26/2010 4:42:09 PM

^^ Total baloney.

Moderate Muslims oppose location of Cordoba Mosque — on religious grounds
August 18, 2010

Quote :

"Stephen Schwartz, executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, told The Daily Caller that despite their relative silence on the issue, many Muslims question the placement of the mosque. 'This is not a humble Islamic statement. A mosque such as this is actually a political structure that casts a shadow over a cemetery, over hallowed ground. 9/11 was the beginning of a kinetic war, it is not an opportunity for cultural exchange. It was the beginning of a conflict with those who want to destroy our way of life,' Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, told The Daily Caller. 'I am in no way looking to infringe on First Amendment issues. I approach this as a Muslim that is dedicated to reform,' he said. Jasser cited the Quranic verse, 'Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book [Jews and Christians],' and said that Muslims backing the project should be introspective during this month of Ramadan."

http://tinyurl.com/26nmktx

And here's a great example of the "tolerant" Left!

Ground Zero Mosque Supporter to Holocaust Survivor: 'Obviously He Didn't Learn His Lesson'
August 26, 2010

Quote :

"The running meme on the Left has been that Americans who oppose the Ground Zero mosque are bigoted, anti-Islamic hatemongers. No attention is paid to the hate often present on the left, by the same activists who are usually the first to claim racism, bigotry, or violence. Interesting to see is their almost lockstep defense of Muslims and the Ground Zero mosque; meanwhile, they completely ignore the anti-Semitism that is so commonplace among Islamofascists."

http://tinyurl.com/36hf7ac

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 4:49 PM. Reason : OMG! That's why I never go to protests like that. ]

8/26/2010 4:48:07 PM

You're taking some amped up dickhole as you're example, ffs dude, you can find those type of people for any given cause. Abortion (both sides), immigration (both sides), furries (well, maybe just one side). As far as tolerant goes, he was still pushing the message that those on the right are against freedom. The holocause survivor said he'd lay in front of the bulldozers and die before this mosque is built. I mean, the lefty was a complete fuckface about it...but the guy on the right validated his point.

8/26/2010 5:06:48 PM

Quote :

"holocause"

I'm guessing that you misspelled this on purpose just to see if I would correct you? Tricky, Chance.

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 5:17 PM. Reason : And you can find intolerant people opposed to the NY mosque, too. Doesn't mean most are. ]

8/26/2010 5:15:24 PM

I don't see why there's so much disagreement in this thread when even those against the mosque are acknowledging their right to build it.

Unless of course there's someone in this thread saying that the construction should be prevented by law and/or force, and I'm just not seeing that. I'm sure some of those people are there in the polling data, but there doesn't appear to be any of them in this thread.


Hell, hooksaw, wouldn't you agree that anyone saying that the government ought to block the mosque construction is being un-American by wanting to deny those Muslims their first amendment rights?

8/26/2010 5:32:06 PM

@hooksaw:

the few muslims who "speak against" the mosque's placement are against it because they know that it's going to rile up anti-Islamic religious/patriotic sentiment within the average provincial americans. which is a very dangerous situation for them.

it's like gays who were against gay marriage activism because they feared it was "too soon" and expected backlash from the majority homophobes running the various state legislatures.

neither group is against their respective issues in principle, they are cautioning restraint in pursuing what ought to be their inalienable right under the US Constitution, merely because they fear the timing is against them and they are in danger of being targeted by bigots.

and please just stop with the [sic]s and the incessant spell checking. the dude obviously missed one letter, put an ending 'e' instead of a 't', letters which happen to be very close to each other on the keyboard. Jesuschristalready, and you talk about misdirection attempts. What that is, is nothing more than an intellectual/elitist attempt at making covert ad hominem attacks on a poster's credibility. Perhaps here you can stick to the substance of the argument, and the you can redline all you want when you get that job as a high school english teacher, okay?


or do you really want to do ad hominem? we can inspect your news links that you hide in tiny URLs: "The Daily Caller." rightwing blog that features scathing attacks on democrats combined with breaking news how Bristol Palin is going to join Dancing with the Stars, and Susan Boyle is going to sing for the Pope. Quality stuff. Is it kind of hard to take seriously someone who gets their news from a right-wing attempt at their own Huffington Post?

and the HotAir (lol) link? that one merely cuts and pastes directly from David Horowitz. Surely there's no agenda there. David Horowitz never seeks out the one lone anti-semitic asshole in a crowd to use to paint an entire group as being in lockstep with.

Come on, man. I mean really.







[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 6:13 PM. Reason : ]

8/26/2010 5:54:43 PM

^^ There are legitimate reasons that the government could block the building of the mosque at issue. But if your meaning is that the government should deny the very right of those to build the mosque, then, no, I don't agree with that--and those who take that position are wrong.

^ I will use sic as I please--and you did a bit of ad hom in that post yourself, didn't you? And I honestly don't care what you or others think of my post quality--examine your own. As to sources, I find the info where I can--I didn't see it available on CNN or MSNBC.

Every thread must be infected with hooksaw derangement syndrome. It simply must.

8/26/2010 6:18:57 PM

Quote :

"I will use sic as I please--and you did a bit of ad hom in that post yourself,"

well... yeah, course i did. An I warened you afore I done it too. It were my egsample of "me can do that to". I showd you hows the arguments git rite retarded wehn you start attakin the credubiltie of the peoples ruther then the substanses of the arguemant.










































now [sic] on that motherfucker

8/26/2010 6:32:21 PM

Quote :

"There are legitimate reasons that the government could block the building of the mosque at issue. "

please feel free to list any/all legitimate reasons

8/26/2010 7:06:30 PM

^I assume he meant things like breaking building codes and ordinances and whatnot... ya know, same things that every other building has to deal with to be allowed to build. But maybe not.

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 7:08 PM. Reason : .]

8/26/2010 7:08:29 PM

Quote :

"And I do have a cursory knowledge of statistics. Here's what I think happened: you started throwing out some big words, expecting that you'd confuse everyone and we'd be thoroughly convinced that you really were smarter than everybody. You didn't think anyone would call you out on your bullshit."

On what bullshit, exactly? I have no need to convince people here I know my shit, because I need to know my shit daily for my job. I have no particular interest in convincing you I can accomplish anything. I save that interest for my boss and my colleagues.

Quote :

"What you're talking about has been the subject of science fiction for at least a century. You know, a computer so powerful that it can model any scenario and answer any question. There is no such thing as luck, and everything in the universe does exactly as physical laws dictate that it should. Humans don't have any real "free will," our behavior is purely the result of chemicals interacting and outside stimuli. You could, theoretically, have a computer capable of predicting the future, in all aspects, if we had enough of an understanding of the physical world to model it."

Actually if you've defined a variable space and taken some measurements, fairly basic covariate analysis can help you answer questions about causal relationships. Estimating and analyzing conditional independence relationships helps one, in a purely algorithmic and data-driven way, come up with countless counterfactual predictions (even the outcomes of those predictions, if wrong, can be used to tweak the model to make better predictions -- even the tweaking can be governed algorithmically!).

We don't need a fine-grained understanding of absolutely everything to make good predictions about, say, herd behavior (even in humans). I'm not saying we have a computer that can "answer any question". Where do I say that? I'm saying that we have perfectly good quantitative techniques that we can (and do) apply to social sciences and soft sciences of all sorts to extract causal information. It's not my fault that you either don't understand what I'm saying or run with it and embellish it to the point of ridiculousness.

Quote :

"Where you go wrong is thinking that we're anywhere close to being able to do that. We aren't. You wrote this off a couple of pages ago, but the point still stands. Your position on this is basically, "yeah, we almost know everything now." How naive can you be?"

I never said anything of the sort you disingenuous little idiot. You definitely should have spent your time doing something worthwhile in college rather than wasting either your own (or somebody else's) money on expensive daycare.

Quote :

"Can you support this statement at all? There's a way to statistically, logically, or mathematically determine is something is acceptable human behavior, without making some serious assumptions, which are likely to be subjective in nature?"

It really depends on your meta-ethical stance. If you're vaguely consequentialist then you care about are the outcomes of events. You can cash out happiness in a variety of metrics used to measure such a thing (whether it be development indices or other ways of measuring progress; per-capita income; resource equality; human happiness index, whatever).

You can analyze the effects of certain behaviors or policies (again, using covariate analysis if you have the right sort of data in front of you) to see what their effects are on various things. Is busing the right thing to do in our school district? This is an ethical question of sorts (at least normative -- "should we do it?") but it's something that should be addressed using actual data. Is education more equitably distributed this way? Is the education higher quality? For how many kids? Are we holding back our most talented students doing so? These are all questions you can answer empirically and which should inform your opinion on whether or not we "should" do it.

It doesn't take a genius (or any specialized knowledge) to know that some human behaviors are unacceptable because they infringe upon other peoples' rights or autonomy or whatever in various ways. Some of these principles have to be argued in the realm of pure philosophy, but good philosophy is informed by logical methodology (and has been ever since Aristotle).

Human herd behavior, economics, public policy, sociology, etc, are all fields that benefit greatly from computational statistical techniques. Your incessant "BUT WE HAVEN'T ANSWERED EVERY QUESTION TO 100% ACCURACY" spiel is just pointless howling at an empty room. You're addressing nobody, because nobody has claimed that.

It's almost like ... I do the work you claim to know about ...

EDIT: I just went back and re-read the entire exchange between us. You should do it too. You basically start frantically cramming words into my mouth desperately hoping nobody noticed lol. Too bad I'd never say the stupid shit you attributed to me.

EDIT2: Hooksaw, why do you imagine my beef with religion has any relevance here? Are you that conceptually confused that you can't keep the debate straight? You seriously seem like a recovering alcoholic or something; your brain is fried. My beef with various religions (including Islam) on the level of ideas has nothing to do with my strong belief that people should be allowed to practice their religion in peace. It's a sad day that America, a place DESIGNED AROUND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOR IMMIGRANTS, has been turned completely on its head by fake-ass "Patriots" like you.

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 7:37 PM. Reason : .]

8/26/2010 7:28:08 PM

Are you prepared to allow the terrorists to win by becoming more like them? Yes or no?

1. hooksaw: Yes.

2. TreeTwista: Yes.

3. bigun20: Yes.

4. Kris: No.

5. theDuke866: No.

6. BridgetSPK: No.

7. indy: No.

8. Imam Feisal: No.

9. Miss USA: No.

10. McDanger: No.

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 7:42 PM. Reason : ]

8/26/2010 7:42:22 PM

you forgot to include me.

8/26/2010 8:06:49 PM

Quote :

"Drunken Man Yells "Terrorists," Urinates on Mosque Rugs A belligerent intoxicated man with a beer in hand strolled into a mosque in Queens, shouted the word "terrorists" and callously urinated on rugs as worshippers engaged in prayer, cops and witnesses said last night, according to published reports. The man, identified as Omar Rivera, reportedly yelled anti-Muslim slurs at those gathered for an evening service at the Iman Mosque in Astoria and defiled the rugs before two men subdued him and put him in a back room while they called 911. "He stuck up his middle finger and cursed at everyone," Mustapha Sadouki, who was at the mosque at the time, told The New York Post. "He calls us terrorists, yet he comes into our mosque and terrorizes other people. This is a true hate crime." Rivera was charged with criminal trespassing, officials said."

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Drunken-Man-Yells-Terrorists-Urinates-on-Mosque-Rugs-Report-101566663.html

Those rugs really tied the room together.

8/26/2010 8:12:01 PM

this is not a worthy adversary . . .

8/26/2010 8:14:43 PM

Dude, you came into a thread and starting shouting down everyone that disagreed because they don't have a background in mathematics and statistics, as if that was any kind of argument. I don't need to know a god damn thing about either in order to form a valid opinion on this mosque issue. I know that quantitative methods have value in economics and political science. That was never the argument. The debate was whether or not one needs to have a background in mathematics, statistics, computers, or empirical methods in order to come to a reasonable conclusion about the rightness or wrongness of a certain act or behavior. Certainly, having data that shows the effects of a policy or action will be a great way to support your argument, but if your entire argument is, "you don't have the prerequisite knowledge to offer up an opinion on this," then my response is going to be "fuck off." Really though, feel free to offer up some data that supports your position on this. I'm sure it exists, but you're not even trying to provide that.

Quote :

"I just went back and re-read the entire exchange between us. You should do it too. You basically start frantically cramming words into my mouth desperately hoping nobody noticed lol. Too bad I'd never say the stupid shit you attributed to me."

I was just about to suggest we do the same thing. Wanted to make sure you were prepared before you started backpedaling.

Quote :

"Might you understand why I'm tired of discussing matters that are, at their heart, causal/statistical with people who don't know anything about either?"

So, yeah, you made the claim that the matters we're discussing in this thread are causal/statistical at their heart. That's really what I took issue with. You're not going to find a place where I said that statistics and computational methods aren't useful.

Quote :

"The pro-bigots are even empirically wrong on this one, seeing as how <50% of Manhattan residents oppose the Mosque. This is everybody else in America doing what Americans do best: making everything about themselves."

Didn't even catch this one originally, but wow, a poll is now "empirical" proof? Now I'm really getting worried.

Quote :

"Seriously -- the lot of you come in here to "play the liberal's word games". You don't understand logic, causal reasoning, statistics, anything about public policy, haven't read any ethics, don't understand the difference between rhetoric and logic, and I'm supposed to "keep my cool" and play this stupid masturbatory back-and-forth that confers no benefit whatsoever?"

That's the same basic opinion. I could continue to argue, but I'll just use your own quote because it sums everything up succinctly:

Quote :

"It doesn't take a genius (or any specialized knowledge) to know that some human behaviors are unacceptable because they infringe upon other peoples' rights or autonomy or whatever in various ways. Some of these principles have to be argued in the realm of pure philosophy, but good philosophy is informed by logical methodology (and has been ever since Aristotle). "

That's right - I don't need specialized knowledge to form an opinion on this issue. I can simply say that by preventing the building of the mosque, you'd be infringing on someone's rights.

8/26/2010 8:21:00 PM

Quote :

"The debate was whether or not one needs to have a background in mathematics, statistics, computers, or empirical methods in order to come to a reasonable conclusion about the rightness or wrongness of a certain act or behavior. Certainly, having data that shows the effects of a policy or action will be a great way to support your argument, but if your entire argument is, "you don't have the prerequisite knowledge to offer up an opinion on this," then my response is going to be "fuck off." Really though, feel free to offer up some data that supports your position on this. I'm sure it exists, but you're not even trying to provide that."

My data is the entire global warming thread, full of people who don't understand what a conditional probability or a moving average is. People who could not read a climate science paper and understand it, yet feel like they are capable of forming "opinions" about climatology. People getting hoodwinked the fuck out because they don't have the tools to think for themselves.

Quote :

" Didn't even catch this one originally, but wow, a poll is now "empirical" proof? Now I'm really getting worried."

You have got to stop trying to make my points for me. Even if 80% of Manhattaners opposed this mosque they'd be wrong. I don't engage in hooksaw-style "LOOK WHAT EVERYBODY THINKS" arguments. I'm just saying that one of the main points of the pro-bigot crowd was that they were defending the feelings of people on Manhattan. Turns out even that wasn't true.

This is what happens when you cherry-pick without understanding the greater context. You project feeble arguments onto me and then catch a fail-pie to the face. The frequency with which you do this leads me to believe you also cherry-picked your education.

Quote :

"I was just about to suggest we do the same thing. Wanted to make sure you were prepared before you started backpedaling. "

Backpedal about what!?!?!? This isn't some TSB wikipedia bot conversation. What the hell have I said thus far that I would backpedal on? It's not even clear you know what I've said. Again, I re-read the thread in an attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt and I think you should do the same. If you come back with the same opinion I have no idea what to tell you other than to fuck off and stop watering down my alma mater you fuckin' dummy.

Quote :

"That's right - I don't need specialized knowledge to form an opinion on this issue. I can simply say that by preventing the building of the mosque, you'd be infringing on someone's rights."

I've stated multiple times that common sense is the only thing needed to get this issue "right". I didn't even argue people needed statistics degrees to form an opinion on whether or not we should be raving, racist assholes to the rest of the world. I'm generally frustrated with the rampant ignorance and lack of ability in TSB; that was the source of my rant earlier.

It's almost like you're trying to read what I say in the least charitable way possible. The vast majority of topics discussed in TSB are discussed by people that can barely read a news article properly, much less a report that contains data analysis.

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 9:01 PM. Reason : . ]

8/26/2010 8:56:45 PM

Haha, got it. We were really talking about the climate change thread this whole time. I think we're done here.

Quote :

"I've stated multiple times that common sense is the only thing needed to get this issue "right". I didn't even argue people needed statistics degrees to form an opinion on whether or not we should be raving, racist assholes to the rest of the world. I'm generally frustrated with the rampant ignorance and lack of ability in TSB; that was the source of my rant earlier."

Eh, okay. It definitely seemed like, in the context of this thread, that you were trying to use your expertise as a leg to stand on.

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 9:09 PM. Reason : ]

8/26/2010 9:04:53 PM

Quote :

"Haha, got it. We were really talking about the climate change thread this whole time. I think we're done here. "

This is what I hate about the fucking Soap Box. HURFY DURFY I DECLARE VICTORY ON THE BASIS OF THIS MYOPIC BULLSHIT

We weren't talking about climate change. We were talking about a bunch of ignoramuses who get all of their information directly from media outlets (usually low-quality ones) and then wade onto here for hours a day to "duke it out" with lame tactics like the one you're exhibiting. I WIN THE INTARWEBZ *drools on self, is as dumb as he was yesterday*

Quote :

"Eh, okay. It definitely seemed like, in the context of this thread, that you were trying to use your expertise as a leg to stand on."

In the context of this argument, of course not. This is topic so easy that even the golden rule gets it right.

The main problem with this place is everybody wants to be an argumentative little shit-bird, and wants to "win" in any way they think will stick. It's not about forming correct opinions or discussing opinions with other people, but it's about squeezing out a perceived victory no matter how minor, petty, or stupid. Fuck that.

[Edited on August 26, 2010 at 9:25 PM. Reason : .]

8/26/2010 9:22:34 PM

Right, but you're different.

8/26/2010 9:27:38 PM

Actually I know about what I post about, so that does make me different. You won't see me posting in a lot of threads and it's because I don't think my opinion in those areas is worth anything

8/26/2010 9:29:51 PM