[Bobboau]

thanks for telling me what I think.

"it is because you believe Muslims are somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks."

where could I have gotten that idea from?

"Christians are responsible for the Westboro Baptist Church protests."

fixed that for you, and yeah, I would agree with that statement.
if a Christian center was built near the site of the Matthew Shepard murder, I would be calling bull**** too.

[Sushi]

But you don't extend that dislike to all Christians.

as i don't extend my dislike to all mosques.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

[General Battuta]

Then that makes your positions internally consistent but even more wrong. Group rights are not abrogated by the actions of subgroups. Placing collective blame on all Christians or Muslims for actions of group members is an absurdity which obligates you to protest - for example - the presence of a statue of a weeping Jesus near the Oklahoma City bombing site.

If you protest again that attacks by Christians on Christians are not the same as attacks by Muslims on Christians, a position you seem to have abandoned, you are simply returning to the notion of collective guilt.

where could I have gotten that idea from?

If you believe all Muslims are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, I don't think you're getting your ideas from very good places.

The fact is that under our legal and ethical systems, groups do not lose their rights when some member of the group carries out an unlawful act.

[StarSlayer]

Since apparently in your opinion all Muslims need to take responsibility for 9/11 are you going to take responsibility for all the deaths on non combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Bobboau]

I will for Iraq.

[Bobboau]

and the site of a horrible act perpetrated by/in the name of/because of a religion is the wrong place to try and extol it's virtues.

[General Battuta]

and the site of a horrible act perpetrated by/in the name of/because of a religion is the wrong place to try and extol it's virtues.

Interesting. So why, then, is the site of a horrible act perpetrated by a group of insane schmucks in the name of a perverted geopolitically motivated fundamentalist mutation of a religion the wrong place to try and extol the actual virtues of the religion?

Seems like an ideal location for me. I'd love to have a Christians church preaching love and acceptance at the site of any hate crime carried out by Christians.

[Bobboau]

because even if it is not the intention, it will appear to be an act of either trying to hide/delude the magnitude of it, or as an act of dominance, or both, that is the symbol people use to point out what is wrong about you and buy going there you only associate yourself with it further.

this isn't isolated to religions, I think it would be a bad idea to built a National Gaurd recruitment center in Kent State.

[General Battuta]

What you're now arguing is that the fundamental problem is that people misunderstand what happened. They're afraid, and so they're going to treat this as some kind of 'act of dominance'.

And like your previous arguments that the struggle for gay rights should throttle back to avoid causing a backlash, it just feels misguided to me. If minority groups start knuckling under to the tyranny of the majority, not only are they just as bad off as they would be if they'd kept fighting, but we as a democracy and a civil society have given up a critical part of our own creed.

You're basically back to arguing that it's a bad idea because people won't like it.

[Bobboau]

"it's a bad idea because people won't like it."

basically yeah.
the "we can't back down or it will make us look weak" argument is not necessarily a good position. after all why did we stay in Iraq for so long after it was obvious that we were wrong going there, that is/was one of the arguments for staying.

[General Battuta]

If minority groups bow to majority groups ever time the majority groups exhibit displeasure, they are no better off than if they exert their rights and draw displeasure, except they lack at least the chance of improving their image and station.

[Bobboau]

unless they incite hostility in the majority population, in which case they can go from being tolerated to being despised.

[NGTM-1R]

unless they incite hostility in the majority population, in which case they can go from being tolerated to being despised.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

[Bobboau]

oh, so you mean like when the American Indians decided to resist US oppression? that worked out real well for them. no, I think slowly inching your way is more effective than trying to force the issue.

[General Battuta]

unless they incite hostility in the majority population, in which case they can go from being tolerated to being despised.

Ceding basic rights is a line that should not be voluntarily crossed. And one of those rights is fair and equal treatment under the law.

[NGTM-1R]

oh, so you mean like when the American Indians decided to resist US oppression? that worked out real well for them.

You mean in the sixties? Yeah, it did.

You're forgetting that they weren't actually citizens or anything, and as foreign nationals the situation isn't remotely comparable.