HitsRus;470377 wrote:Perfect example of what I mean by Ivory Tower prattling..... That makes a lot of sense for the emotionally detached elitist thinker. As a highly educated professional...I agree with you 100%. If everyone in the world would rationally think that way, we could solve nuclear proliferation in a day. We could end all wars with a stroke of a pen!

But that is not how the real world operates. People react with base emotions....to threats real and unreal....to percieved insults...and they'll defend their territory for their posterity to the death.
There is nothing logical about it and it can't be legislated away.

So because we don't freak out and get angry at everything we're elitists?

^^^hardly....didn't say that. Anyone can come to that conclusion. It would be your expectation that all necessarily should come to your conclusion and that your conclusion is more valid than someone else's.

HitsRus;470744 wrote:It would be your expectation that all necessarily should come to your conclusion and that your conclusion is more valid than someone else's.

Don't you have the same expectation that everyone should come to your conclusion?

You said he was "Ivory Tower prattling" and a "emotionally detached elitist thinker".

How was any of what ptwon said "Ivory Tower prattling"?

Don't you have the same expectation that everyone should come to your conclusion?

Nope. I just hope to change some people's minds that proposing a mosque/cultural center near ground zero at the current time was not a good idea....and that all who oppose it are not necessarily anti-muslim or bigots.
That some Americans(apparently a lot) would be sensitive to that proposal doesn't surprise me. I find it understandable and not necessarily reprehensible.

HitsRus;470377 wrote: But that is not how the real world operates. People react with base emotions....to threats real and unreal....to percieved insults...and they'll defend their territory for their posterity to the death.
There is nothing logical about it and it can't be legislated away.

soooooo what your saying is women and blacks should still not have rights because many people didnt think they deserved them and had certain fears about them having rights?

but luckily those issues were legislated away and now they do have rights.

HitsRus;470836 wrote:Nope. I just hope to change some people's minds that proposing a mosque/cultural center near ground zero at the current time was not a good idea....and that all who oppose it are not necessarily anti-muslim or bigots.
That some Americans(apparently a lot) would be sensitive to that proposal doesn't surprise me. I find it understandable and not necessarily reprehensible.

I can understand why they might think that, but I think they're wrong. If we want to use your dog analogy, when I was a kid I was bitten by a dog. For a while after that I was terrified of every dog I saw. That didn't make them all bad and eventually I got over it. It would have been ridiculous for me to think everyone had to keep their dogs more than two blocks away from me because I was scared of what one dog did.

How was any of what ptwon said "Ivory Tower prattling"?

He to dismissed the 'sensitivities' of some Americans out of hand and passed judgement on them. That's easy to do when you are 'above' the deep emotional attachments that some people may have.

Yeah, but you would still be scared....and your neighbors would be helpful if they kept their dog tied up and at no closer distance than what was the current location.

HitsRus;470856 wrote:He to dismissed the 'sensitivities' of some Americans out of hand and passed judgement on them. That's easy to do when you are 'above' the deep emotional attachments that some people may have.

Where did he pass judgement on them?

HitsRus;470863 wrote:Yeah, but you would still be scared....and your neighbors would be helpful if they kept their dog tied up and at no closer distance than what was the current location.

So you like to baby people is what you're saying.

IWP...you are getting annoying. Read what I posted and if you don't agree that's fine. But I'm not going to play this game anymore

I just don't see how you can think that because someone gets upset about something irrationally, someone else has to take steps to appease them.

HitsRus;470894 wrote:IWP...you are getting annoying. Read what I posted and if you don't agree that's fine. But I'm not going to play this game anymore

HitsRus, i dont like reading your posts. I could just hit "ignore" or even stop reading here, but that would take a away from my freedom to be here. so instead, i would like you to stop posting on threads i read.

HitsRus;470894 wrote:IWP...you are getting annoying. Read what I posted and if you don't agree that's fine. But I'm not going to play this game anymore

HitsRUs...please keep posting. I think your posts are most enlightening. I don't post because I think you nail it. Please don't listen to Glory Days. Thank you.

I just don't see how you can think that because someone gets upset about something irrationally, someone else has to take steps to appease them.

Relating to this specific case is not appeasement. It's not about irrationality or being upset as much as it is about trauma. We are talking about events differing in magnitude exponentially.

(reference to Glory days last post also)...you get upset when your neighbor's cat pees in your flower bed. You get traumatized when airplanes are crashing into buildings and skyscrapers are imploding and tumbling down. Dust, debris and death everywhere...right in your own backyard. Some understanding of that trauma, some allowance has to be made for that. You can't just sit up in the Ivory tower and say it's not rational, so F' you.
Like it or not, whether it is fair or not, 'peaceful' Islam is going to take some blowback from what it's radical members did in their name. It might be easier if the perpetrators were an isolated band in some remote area, but they are not. They are a well funded, organized, significant percentage of Islam...and they still threaten us. In general, since the attack on the Twin Towers, the country has been pretty much tolerant and understanding of the Islamic faith...people have controlled their base instincts to lash out. But there is an undercurrent of distrust for the reasons listed above. It is best that the worst instincts of mankind not be provoked.
It might not be fair, it might not be right,...but treading carefully is the prudent thing to do.

Mosque supporter contributed to Holy Land Foundation (deemed a global terror group in 2001) in 1999:

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/local_news/manhattan/mosque-investors-donation-investigation-20100902

Of course the debate is, did he know the true intentions of the HLF in 1999, two years before they became labeled a terror group? Maybe it was innocent, maybe not- but it raises doubts nonetheless.

Federal investigators say HLF was set up as the largest Muslim charity in the United States based in Richardson, Texas, but from its inception the group existed to support Hamas.

Mr. Elzanaty's attorney tells Fox 5 News exclusively his client believed he was making contributions to an orphanage.

But IPT’s Ray Locker claims even back then TV and newspapers were reporting suspicions of the group’s ties to terror. “If you gave money (to HLF) in 1999 you probably had some inkling that HLF was giving money to Hamas and therefore to terrorist operations,” Locker says.

HitsRus;470856 wrote:He to dismissed the 'sensitivities' of some Americans out of hand and passed judgement on them. That's easy to do when you are 'above' the deep emotional attachments that some people may have.

Above the deep emotions? Give me a break! Please.

I fully understand emotional responses and how they effect rational actors, especially when emotions make an actor conduct themselves in an irrational fashion. (Deterrence theory comes to mind, also the response to 9/11 and one could say invasion of Iraq)
My point was, the people who oppose the Mosque are linking the Mosque to 9/11 and the emotional response that 9/11 produced. Which, I can understand to some degree.

However, as a policy maker, it is not wise to act and engage policy that is in response to an emotional action. Neither is it smart to limit or broaden a certain groups power simply because of emotional responses.

I understand people are upset, but you know what, deal with it. Life will go on. Take some personal responsibility and move on. Use 9/11 and say hey, I can be strong and bridge the gap between religions, or I can understand Islam and not blame it. I honestly doubt that the mosque is going to radically alter someone's life in a way that is will endanger or hurt their safety or lives. It is a building that is not related to 9/11 whatsoever. Any link is false and just playing off of grief, hatred or ignorance. Most people, once the thing is built will forget about it and move on.

It is not that big a deal if you think in the long term. Emotions fade. Sounds harsh, but I am honestly sick of the "insensitivity" "its too close to sacred ground" arguments. Toughen up, move on, be an American and be strong and focus on your own life and not some building that will not impact your life whatsoever.

Too much time is being spend on this building and not Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, budgets, Pakistan, etc.

You can say I'm an elitist or above emotions, but I know emotion and remember my anger on 9/11.

ptown_trojans_1;471001 wrote:

Too much time is being spend on this building and not Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, budgets, Pakistan, etc.

This.

That.

ptown_trojans_1;471001 wrote:Above the deep emotions? Give me a break! Please.

I fully understand emotional responses and how they effect rational actors, especially when emotions make an actor conduct themselves in an irrational fashion. (Deterrence theory comes to mind, also the response to 9/11 and one could say invasion of Iraq)
My point was, the people who oppose the Mosque are linking the Mosque to 9/11 and the emotional response that 9/11 produced. Which, I can understand to some degree.

However, as a policy maker, it is not wise to act and engage policy that is in response to an emotional action. Neither is it smart to limit or broaden a certain groups power simply because of emotional responses.

I understand people are upset, but you know what, deal with it. Life will go on. Take some personal responsibility and move on. Use 9/11 and say hey, I can be strong and bridge the gap between religions, or I can understand Islam and not blame it. I honestly doubt that the mosque is going to radically alter someone's life in a way that is will endanger or hurt their safety or lives. It is a building that is not related to 9/11 whatsoever. Any link is false and just playing off of grief, hatred or ignorance. Most people, once the thing is built will forget about it and move on.

It is not that big a deal if you think in the long term. Emotions fade. Sounds harsh, but I am honestly sick of the "insensitivity" "its too close to sacred ground" arguments. Toughen up, move on, be an American and be strong and focus on your own life and not some building that will not impact your life whatsoever.

Too much time is being spend on this building and not Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, budgets, Pakistan, etc.

You can say I'm an elitist or above emotions, but I know emotion and remember my anger on 9/11.

I get the emotional argument and the need to move on, but New Yorkers (2/3 of whom oppose the building) have every right to feel how they feel and restrict certain building projects in Lower Manhatten. I don't think anyone with half a brain thinks the people behind this building were behind 9/11, but not every radical Islamist who would like to see the decline of the West is an al-Qaedist either. Suppose the $100 million dollar building were to be funded, at least in part, by individuals with clear links to terror organizations. Would you still tell us to "toughen up, move on, and focus on our own lives"?

(As an aside- if we all focused on our own lives, we wouldn't be debating politics/current events on an anonymous message board.)

As for the "too much time" argument, this building is not the business of the federal government, whose responsibilities include Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, etc. It is the business of New Yorkers at the local level, and I don't expect them to be solving our budget problems or foreign policy issues.

They have the right to feel how they feel but not the right to restrict certain building projects. Unless those projects don't meet zoning requirements or are illegal or something. Which this building isn't.

And Ptown likely meant we should all of us (us here, the media, some guy in Montana, journalists, etc) be more focussed on the wars, the economy, etc not because we can necessarily do something about it but because those things actually deserve our attention and support/outrage.

I Wear Pants;471227 wrote:They have the right to feel how they feel but not the right to restrict certain building projects. Unless those projects don't meet zoning requirements or are illegal or something. Which this building isn't.

And Ptown likely meant we should all of us (us here, the media, some guy in Montana, journalists, etc) be more focussed on the wars, the economy, etc not because we can necessarily do something about it but because those things actually deserve our attention and support/outrage.

You know how often a building is stopped due to the local residents just not wanting that type of business in their area? Zoning laws are always cited when someone doesn't want a WalMart or something close to their house.

Actually in NYC its far worse, they will decline a building project just if they feel the building doesn't "fit" into the skyline picture. NYC is one of the oddest places to try to build anything, so yes, it is VERY often that things aren't built in certain areas just because the locals don't want it there.

Good points.

But I just hate how anymore we as a society won't do something that otherwise has no reason to not be done simply because some people throw a hissyfit.

BGFalcons82;466296 wrote:Isn't the world off it's axis when the liberals are for government-backed religious buildings and the conservatives are for separation of church and state? LOL

As a non-religious person who thinks a lot of things would be better if people of all beliefs just focused on positive parables and common sense teachings and not their particular religion itself, I agree with that. And look at it as an example of why we're so fucked politically on both sides. Seems like everyone compromises their political beliefs when it comes to hot-topic issues (no matter how truly unimportant in the grand scheme of things they are). They turn into more of a "how does the other side feel...WELL THEY'RE WRONG!!!!" deal instead of using rational discussion and compromise (you know, the "sensitive, respectful of feelings" deal many think the Muslims should utilize with this thing) to solve issues. It's a big problem on both sides and pisses me off to no end. Seems like all the political ads today care more about talking about how big of a shithead the other guy is than what the dude it's endorsing can actually bring to the table.

What one person calls "doing the right thing" might be what another person calls "Christians dictating how shit runs to everyone". In other words, the same sort of "Ivory Tower elitism" or whatever nonsense is being spewed because some people are frustrated that others don't share their views.