Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Some good quotes I pulled regarding self-centered, lazy generations, etc...

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

-Socrates

I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond
words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise (meaning disrespectful) and impatient of restraint.

-Hesiod

The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for
parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress.

Peter the Hermit in 1274 AD

Look, I shudder too when I hear stories about Gen Yers bring their mom to a job interview, etc. But overall, kids are just kids. The real issue is we adults glossing over all the times we were lazy, self-centered louts at that age.

Perhaps the laziness of people and children is cyclic?

Gen 1 is hard working and has children given a lot of extras.

Gen 2 is less hard working and not as respectful as Gen 1.

Gen 3 suffers due to lack of work and lack of respect.

Gen 4 realizes the mistakes of Gen 3 and returns to the ethics of Gen 1.

Although, it could be sporadic.

Gen 1: 15% of children are disrespectful

Gen 2: 64% of children are disrespectful.

Gen 3: 31% of children are disrespectful.

So on, and so on.

Some people feel like life is owed to them, as if the world is in debt to them for some unforseen reason. These people often suffer because the world does not owe them a wooden nickel. Cases of this are like the yuppies that you let in your lane during rush hour traffic and they don't even bother to acknowledge your existence.

Then there are people who want to work, they love manual labor and don't care to go higher up in education or pay. These people are often respectful and respected and have friends who are willing to lend a hand if necessary. These people will also often find ways to pay their friends back. This is the guy that who's friends suddenly need work done on something when the guy is hurting for money.

There's the person who started from lower class and worked his/her way to the top and is successful. Depending on the family and background this person could be a disrespectful jerk, or a respectful philanthropist.

It all just depends on who and how you were raised. Where can matter, but not always.

On another note I agree with guitardian on the kid issue. I don't plan to get married or have kids till I can support a family comfortably.

On another other note, the whole "ground zero mosque" thing is really annoying. Do they have the right to build there, absolutely. Is it right for them to build there, personally no. Are we at war with islam, no. Are we at war with radical islam, yes.

As some people argue, it is wrong for the japanese to put a shrine near Pearl Harbor, it is wrong for the nazis to put a symbol near the Holocaust Museum, but it would be wrong for a Klan rally to be held near the MLK Jr Memorial, or a shrine for John Wilkes Booth to be put near the Lincoln Memorial, etc.

People will argue "But its not a radical islamic mosque that tey are building." I will say that we don't know that for sure and I will also say that one of the bigger issues may be that radical islamic terrorists believe in the same Allah that normal followers of Islam do. This could be enough to warrant the negative response from the people.

gorgon wrote:Look, I shudder too when I hear stories about Gen Yers bring their mom to a job interview, etc. But overall, kids are just kids. The real issue is we adults glossing over all the times we were lazy, self-centered louts at that age.

How many of those cases are helicopter parents?

Yes, if only there was a simple explanation laymen could give to a complex social phenomena...

halonachos wrote:Perhaps the laziness of people and children is cyclic?

That's the central premise of the book 13th Gen, which is about Generation X (the 13th generation of Americans since the founding). The idea is that every few generations America faces a great crises, and the generation at the heart of the crises is forced to resolve the crises and becomes a transformative generation. This is followed by maintaining generation, that appreciates and attempts to maintain the transformative generation's achievements but fails to maintain its values (having not faced the crises themselves). The maintaining generation is followed by a wasting generation, which has no appreciation for


Basically that book argues that the Greatest Generation, having grown up dealing with the hardship of their parent's folly (the Gilded age) in the Great Depression and having fought World War 2, was deeply committed to having a society that functioned well and was fair for everyone. They were a generation of team players who had learned the necessity of good communal values the hard way.

They were followed by the Silent Generation, which grew up in the Depression and during the war, but came of age up in the post war boom era and didn't face the crises themselves. A few of them fought in Korea, but for the most part they had it very easy their whole lives. They served as the vanguard which shaped the worldview of the Baby Boomer generation, but for the most part they held to the ideals of the Greatest Generation.

The Baby Boom was born after the crises was over, and into the new world made possible by the achievements of the transformers, but they had no appreciation for it. They did not understand the sacrifices the greatest generation made to give them post-war America, and began to break the systems that maintained it. Reagan was their president, and America has been on a downward slide ever since, all driven by Baby Boomer greed. The elites of the Greatest Generation were happy to pay a 90% rate on the highest brackets of income, because they wanted to create an America where everyone had opportunity. But their children never saw a world full of people with no opportunity and no hope, their children didn't see how the Depression gave rise to violence and horrors, their children only knew a world where everything was given to them on a golden platter, where everything was made easy for them by the sacrifices of their parents.

And when they came of age, and their parents started retiring and dying off, and they were asked to shoulder the burden their parents had carried for them, they said...Nah. Screw that. It's about Me Me Me. And they let it become their children's problem. That's Generation X, my generation. We're in the tail end of the Boomer's reign, and the Boomer's fully intend to foist all of the problems they have avoided dealing with, the costs of repairing all of the damage they have done in their selfishness, onto Gen X.

Gen X is not lazy. Gen X is disaffected. Gen X realizes that Gen X got an extremely raw deal, and that the Boomers have shafted us hard. Now we may be the ones who solve the problem. Most of Gen X is somewhere between the ages of 26 and 46, with the real core of the generation around my age (34). We're the generation that is taking over the political machinery, and taking over the businesses, and within twenty years we will be running this country. I think we're going to fix it, because my sense is that my generation is a sleeping bear, just waiting for the long winter of the Boomers to end. My generation responded powerfully to Barrack Obama's message of hope and "Yes we can!" and is disappointed by his lack of radicalism. We want to shake things up, and to change things.

I don't think we're ever going to get to have the American Dream -- white picket fenced house of nuclear families -- but that's okay. Because the generation before the Greatest Generation had a very different idea of the American Dream, and the Greatest Generation changed the dream. And I think Gen X is going to change the Dream again, and give the Millenials a new golden age, which they will try to maintain, and which Gen Z will inevitably screw up.

I'm part of Generation X? I always put myself right into Y territory. I don't like to think of myself as being the flawed, emo product of the Baby Boomers' lameness.

I think I need a shower.

halonachos wrote:Although, it could be sporadic.

Nah, it's a constant. There are always loads of disrespectful, lazy kids. There are always loads of people complaining about disrespectful, lazy kids. And there is a proportion of the population who sees the number of proportion of kids who are disrespectful and lazy are much more numerous than the number of adults who are disrespectful and lazy, and don't realise that many disrespectful, lazy kids grow up into respectful, hardworking adults... so instead they assume that this new generation suddenly has more disrespectful and lazy kids than any other generation and now we're all doomed.

That's demonstrated with gorgon's excellent historical quotes.

Then there are people who want to work, they love manual labor and don't care to go higher up in education or pay. These people are often respectful and respected and have friends who are willing to lend a hand if necessary. These people will also often find ways to pay their friends back. This is the guy that who's friends suddenly need work done on something when the guy is hurting for money.

Umm, I get your point that in any generation is takes all kinds, but your idea that people who like manual labour are somehow a type more inclined being respectful and supportive of their mates is crazy. Have you been on a building site? It's not exactly a place dedicated towards respect for all.

As some people argue, it is wrong for the japanese to put a shrine near Pearl Harbor, it is wrong for the nazis to put a symbol near the Holocaust Museum, but it would be wrong for a Klan rally to be held near the MLK Jr Memorial, or a shrine for John Wilkes Booth to be put near the Lincoln Memorial, etc.

You're really missing the point. The people who built the mosque are totally different to the people who flew planes into the building. Really, totally different. It would be like banning buddhist temples near Pearl Harbour, when that shrine was dedicated to building closer ties between Japan and the US.

People will argue "But its not a radical islamic mosque that tey are building." I will say that we don't know that for sure

We do know that it isn't a radical mosque, the briefest reading on the issue will make that absolutely clear. The guy behind the mosque wrote a book called "What is right with Islam is Right with the US". His entire political career is dedicated towards bridging the gap between Islam and the West. He was part of the Muslim advisory group to President Bush.

He is a moderate. Whoever has told you anything to contrary is a liar, or someone who listens to liars. You need to stop listening to those people.

and I will also say that one of the bigger issues may be that radical islamic terrorists believe in the same Allah that normal followers of Islam do. This could be enough to warrant the negative response from the people.

What? The God believed in by IRA bombers and the Lord's Army is the same God believed in by moderate Christians. Yet the actions of those extremist nuts don't discredit normal Christians. Why would it be any different for muslims?

I'd strongly argue that what made the Greatest Generation great are their circumstances. Other generations would have risen to the occasion if faced with the same issues. I recall people volunteering in the aftermath of 9/11. And while that was one of the most tragic days in our nation's history, it still wasn't equivalent to Pearl Harbor in terms of how the country had to mobilize afterward. Iraq and Afghanistan have been expensive, bloody affairs, but they aren't a *world war.* Faced with something like that, our people would have reacted similarly to how they did in the 1940s.

So I'm clear -- my intent here is not to diminish the achievements of that generation, because they certainly are many. The point is that for the most part, people are just people no matter what time period you're looking at. Sure, you get cultural differences, etc. But for the most part, parents want the same things for their children and will sacrifice as needed to make that happen. It's just that less sacrifice is needed now than during the 1930s and 1940s.

Perhaps more on topic, I honestly tend to ignore criticisms of modern parenting from those who aren't a parent. After I became a parent I realized two things. First, I realized just how hard a job it is. Another poster on this site once equated parenting with marriage and sex as things you have to experience before you understand them. I think that's about right. Second, I realized just how many good parents there are out there. We're all flawed individuals, so we're all flawed parents. But most parents love their children and do the best they can.

Gailbraithe wrote:Gen X is not lazy. Gen X is disaffected. Gen X realizes that Gen X got an extremely raw deal, and that the Boomers have shafted us hard. Now we may be the ones who solve the problem. Most of Gen X is somewhere between the ages of 26 and 46, with the real core of the generation around my age (34). We're the generation that is taking over the political machinery, and taking over the businesses, and within twenty years we will be running this country. I think we're going to fix it, because my sense is that my generation is a sleeping bear, just waiting for the long winter of the Boomers to end.

The fundamental problem with this is that the Boomers are a gigantic voting bloc that is now reaching retirement age. And no one -- no one -- votes with regularity like retirees. That's why politicians pander to them and are loathe to cut their entitlements, etc. And unfortunately because the Boomers are a very large generation, it's going to mean a high cost to Gen X and Y. Size matters even in politics.

Sebster, by sporadic I didn't mean in terms of time, I actually meant in terms of location and population. There are always disrespectful kids, but just because you live in the inner city doesn't mean you kick old people down stairs and just because you come from the suburbs doesn't mean you would help them up.

That was my bad for not clarifying.

Now with the work sites, there is a difference between doing something that you love and something that is your job. I love doing manual labor; building sheds, shoveling dirt, laying down tar paper, etc. This will not be my job though, I plan to be a trauma surgeon and chances are I will enjoy that job as well, but I love to get my hands dirty.

Now we have people at a construction site and we may have people that love to get their hads dirty, people who fething hate their job, and people who are only there because they decided to drop out of high school. Not every worker there is respectful because they may not love what they are doing.

Its just that from my personal experience I'v found that people who love to do hard work are generally more respectful.

The truth is we really don't know. The kind old man working in the church seems nice and we trusted him, this was all fine and good except for the fact that he was the BTK killer. FDR seemed like a strong leader, except he was crippled by polio. We don't actually know how a person is like even after their death most of the time, ths guy could be a closeted radical intent on enslaving our young and imprisoning everyone else while pushing the elderly down the stairs. Chances are he isn't that evil, but we never know.

Of course it isn't the same people who attacked the world trade centers, they were suicide bombers and seeing as though they did their job are dead. Here's another issue for you though. They were proclaimed martyrs of the islamic faith, the saints we worship today were martyrs of the christian faith. Compare the two and you will see that islamic "martyrs" were suicide bombers after that one kid blew himself up with a grenade decades ago, christian martyrs usually were crucified, or imprisoned, or tortured giving different cultural definitions and impressions.

While most muslims may not see suicide bombers as martyrs, the fact that some do see them as martyrs is enough to make the christians iffy about the islamic faith and muslim culture.

That's all one needs to warrant the mistrust about a cultural site being put up near a site where said culture did something really bad.

A german cultural center being put up near the Holocaust Museum is a bad idea as is putting up a japanese cultural center near Pearl Harbor. They may not be the same people who did the bad thing, but they represent the people who did and the culture that allowed them to be.

Also, I don't know what world you live in but I get flak all of the time for being a catholic because of the crusades and other religious nut jobs. Its just that most of the people giving me garbage are either "wiccans" or atheists saying that the christian faith is bullocks.

halonachos wrote:We don't actually know how a person is like even after their death most of the time, ths guy could be a closeted radical intent on enslaving our young and imprisoning everyone else while pushing the elderly down the stairs. Chances are he isn't that evil, but we never know.

If that statement is true of the imam in question, then it is also true of everyone else in the world. You've basically argued that we can never know what will happen in the future, and while this is true, we can make educated guesses.

In this instance the relevant data points to a moderate imam trying to build a mosque near Ground Zero. Its also possible that the mosque will become a den of radicals, but if we aren't interested in probability at all, then its also possible that the mosque will sprout wings and fly. Or, for that matter, that a Muslim terrorist cell will set up shop at a Catholic Church, Jewish Synagogue, or Yankee Stadium.

halonachos wrote:
They were proclaimed martyrs of the islamic faith, the saints we worship today were martyrs of the christian faith. Compare the two and you will see that islamic "martyrs" were suicide bombers after that one kid blew himself up with a grenade decades ago, christian martyrs usually were crucified, or imprisoned, or tortured giving different cultural definitions and impressions.

There is a lot wrong there. First, not all saints are martyrs and not all martyrs are saints. Second, martyrdom is a Christian idea, shahid is a similar Islamic concept, but it isn't similar enough to be considered the same. Third, suicide bombing is not universally considered to be an acceptable means of establishing martyrdom. Fourth, Islam doesn't have a rigid hierarchy. When a Muslim proclaims someone to be shahid, he speaks only for himself in much the same way that a Protestant speaks only for himself.

halonachos wrote:
That's all one needs to warrant the mistrust about a cultural site being put up near a site where said culture did something really bad.

Well, that's all one needs to cause mistrust. It doesn't necessarily mean that said mistrust is warranted.

I don't think you would claim that an atheist was justified in mistrusting Christians because of the actions of Fred Phelps, so it seems strange to me that you would take the same line here.

halonachos wrote:
A german cultural center being put up near the Holocaust Museum is a bad idea...

Why? Many Holocaust victims were German.

halonachos wrote:
They may not be the same people who did the bad thing, but they represent the people who did and the culture that allowed them to be.

So, the Holocaust museum at Auschwitz is offensive because it was built by Germans, contains things written in German, is dedicated to German history, and was built to memorialize Germans who died?

halonachos wrote:
Also, I don't know what world you live in but I get flak all of the time for being a catholic because of the crusades and other religious nut jobs. Its just that most of the people giving me garbage are either "wiccans" or atheists saying that the christian faith is bullocks.

Are they right to do that?

You guys make the ghost of Mr. Rogers cry. He would sit us all in a circle and ask us to say something nice about the person next to us.

-
anyhoo... I agree with the idea that gen X-ers (aforementioned 30-45 ish) did get a raw deal. I also don't think we are nearly as lazy or lacking in ethics as the internet generation immediately below us, or the twitter generation immediately below them.

I dont have an adequate education by modern standards, other than what I taught myself. We just didn't have computers in every classroom when I was a kid. Additionaly, while I agree that mostly all parents want what's best for their children, the Boomer and Sleeper (or "silent") generations are rife with selfish people who only want the best for THEIR children, not for me. I pay hiked up rent to a schmuck who didn't have to ever work a crap job and live with housemates just to share the bills that one full time job can't pay for. They own everything and there is nothing left for us but to pay in their coffers because they could buy everything back when it was cheap and life was good.

Some of my peers have good jobs, usually because their daddy or uncle or friend-of-family gave it to them, and they will continue the cycle of ownership, voting on the issues that only concern them, and leaving the bill in their wake for us to mop up, while we pay them hiked up rent, pay into SSI that we will never see, and do their dirty work. Precious few that I know have 'good' jobs based solely on merit. And we wonder why the system is so trashed?

Greatest Generation? sure. I give props to anyone who served in WW2, but we dont get that opportunity either, war is now a calculated endeavor, not a absolute necessity. There will be no other Hitler craziness because it was dealt with and the world now knows not to let things get that far again. It just happened to be that moment in time when they did something, and were rightfully proud of their achievement. We would have done the same.

It isn't the 'greatest generation' that owns everything and greedily overcharges us for it, its their kids. Its the sleepers/silents and the boomers that got to grow up with the white picket fence and everything handed to them who I have to pay overpriced rent to.

I didn't really know my grandparents, so, I actually just hate old people and their sense of entitlement, their voting concerns, their expectations, their supposedly justifiable racism, in general... just like they hate my generation. The cool this is, the DIE FIRST, GET OUT OF THE WAY and let us fix their greedy mess. We are not lazy, we just have precious few opportunities until they keel over.

Guitardian wrote:You guys make the ghost of Mr. Rogers cry. He would sit us all in a circle and ask us to say something nice about the person next to us.

I'd immediately get up and get a hammer...

Greatest Generation? sure. I give props to anyone who served in WW2, but we dont get that opportunity either, war is now a calculated endeavor, not a absolute necessity. There will be no other Hitler craziness because it was dealt with and the world now knows not to let things get that far again. It just happened to be that moment in time when they did something, and were rightfully proud of their achievement. We would have done the same

(Looks at Iran, North Korea, Leichtenstein, Venezuela, the rising power that is China) Er what was that again?

China is centered on China, not trying to subjugate the world like Nazi Germany was. Korean war was not between the people, just the commie scare and U.S.S.R., Venezuela offered us their natural gas a couple of years ago when we had a crisis and it was refused by Dubyah because he didn't want Chavez on his friends list. next?

Guitardian wrote:China is centered on China, not trying to subjugate the world like Nazi Germany was. Korean war was not between the people, just the commie scare and U.S.S.R., Venezuela offered us their natural gas a couple of years ago when we had a crisis and it was refused by Dubyah because he didn't want Chavez on his friends list. next?

China is expanding.
Korean war was between the people? WTF? My Dad and Uncle would disagree with you, but they were busy ducking and listening to bugles at the time.
Venezuela doesn't have natural gas.
You didn't mention Iran.


Should note. The USA and USSR only went after Germany because Germany attacked or declared war first...

Iran has repeatedly claimed that their only interest in nuclear weapons is because everyone around them (esp. crazy ass Israel) has them. However, Ackmhudclearmythroat guy has said things about wanting to destroy Israel in the past. Sez my uncaring ass: good riddance to you both. Have fun in your respective Heavens. just another bs primitive religious bickering crap to wipe off the to-do-list.

Guitardian wrote:Iran has repeatedly claimed that their only interest in nuclear weapons is because everyone around them (esp. crazy ass Israel) has them. However, Ackmhudclearmythroat guy has said things about wanting to destroy Israel in the past. Sez my uncaring ass: good riddance to you both. Have fun in your respective Heavens. just another bs primitive religious bickering crap to wipe off the to-do-list.

So you're pretty much disagreeing with your own post. We haven't learned.

Welcome to Frazzled land.

Trust No One!
Believe Nothing!

Hey bud I'm not advocating that WE wipe them off the map. But if they want to wipe each other off the map, that simply isn't our problem. Any more.

Guitardian wrote:Hey bud I'm not advocating that WE wipe them off the map. But if they want to wipe each other off the map, that simply isn't our problem. Any more.

True that, unless they throw a few nukes our way or activate their Hezbullah units that are in the US.

Having said that, same statement could have been made about Hitler, or Imperial Japan, or expansionist USSR. Its the same argument. Doesn't effect me so why should I care?

Strangely enough the US did rather well with that as a doctrine for much of its life. Sounds like a plan man.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:We don't actually know how a person is like even after their death most of the time, ths guy could be a closeted radical intent on enslaving our young and imprisoning everyone else while pushing the elderly down the stairs. Chances are he isn't that evil, but we never know.

If that statement is true of the imam in question, then it is also true of everyone else in the world. You've basically argued that we can never know what will happen in the future, and while this is true, we can make educated guesses.

In this instance the relevant data points to a moderate imam trying to build a mosque near Ground Zero. Its also possible that the mosque will become a den of radicals, but if we aren't interested in probability at all, then its also possible that the mosque will sprout wings and fly. Or, for that matter, that a Muslim terrorist cell will set up shop at a Catholic Church, Jewish Synagogue, or Yankee Stadium.

halonachos wrote:
See, anything is possible. Although, it is more likely that the mosque will sprout radical islamic wings than say a catholic church or another non-muslim place. See that's the thing with probability, there's a chance it could sprout wings although that is incredibly unlikely and will most likely not happen. However, a radical islamic fighter being recruited in a place where the islamic faith is practiced and taught has a significant higher chance of actually occuring. So you can say that with probabilities something silly may happen, but seriously be a little realistic here. You're comparing something that is rather fanciful to something that is rather real.

Why should I be realistic? You're essentially discarding all relevant data in order to reach what isn't even the worst possible conclusion. What I did was use reductio ad absurdum in order to point out that you weren't approaching this reasonably by indicating that you were ignoring what is a very large body of relevant information; presumably in order to verify your own feelings about the matter.

halonachos wrote:
Isn't it awesome when you skip lines?

I read your whole post, and nothing you wrote corrected the basic, factual errors that I pointed out.

halonachos wrote:
I would also like to add that I put quotation marks around the "martyrs" in islamic "martyrs" for a reason. They aren't martyrs, but are called martyrs by some. See, I said some again that means "not all".

Sure, they're called martyrs by English speakers that want to distort the meaning of source material for political ends, or by similar translators with lazy principals. Arabic speakers do not use the word martyr when speaking to Arabic audiences.

halonachos wrote:
Okay, I will agree that the first one was a bad example. However, you missed the point with the second one. Last time I checked the jews didn't commit genocide in Germany, so in your example we have a center for the victim culture being set up near the perpetrator culture. That is just a little bit different from what we have in my previous examples and in the situation we are discussing.

But the perpetrator culture wasn't German culture. The perpetrator culture was Nazi culture, at least to the extent that Nazism is a culture. You have to be careful to accurately describe what culture was actually responsible for actions, lest you accidentally do something silly like include victims (like German Jews, for instance) in the perpetrator culture. Similarly, its wrong to state that Islam was responsible for 9/11 when the reality is that a variation of Wahhabism was responsible for the attack. The first variant of each example is broadly accurate in that Germans were indeed involved in the Holocaust and Muslims were involved in 9/11, but they are both imprecise to a degree that leaves on to wonder about the motivation of the speaker.

halonachos wrote:
Yes, they are right. The christian faith has caused a lot of issues and it still does, how many catholic presidents have we had after all? However, the faith is a culture of its own and has its dark spots that cause mistrust at first. The Westboro Baptist Church is a shining example of the dark spots and I'm sure that the news is filled with reports of priest molesting children. I personally live by the policy of not trusting a group, but trusting the individual. Can all christians be trusted, no. Can all muslims be trusted, no. You can learn about the individual and decide whether or not that individual can be trusted. Like I said I don't trust the christians as a group, but there are more than several christians I do trust as individuals.

You've switched ideas here. There is a difference between trusting someone because they profess something, and refraining from harassing someone because they profess something. In the prior post you described people harassing you for being Catholic, and in this one you're referring to refraining from granting trust simply because someone is of a given faith. I agree with the latter point, but not the former.

Moreover, I think there is a big difference between the basic courtesy that permits a civic society to function, and trusting someone to the degree that you do not police them as you would any other member of said society. We allow Muslims to build mosques in this country because we grant them a degree of trust with regard to not wanting to cause any physical harm. We also trust that, should they attempt to cause that harm, the agencies designed to prevent such action will be able to intercede; or even that more common individuals would step in. This combination of forces is what allows society to function at all. After all, some people in Montana are pedophiles, therefore, by your argument, it would be right for me to oppose allowing people from Montana (or anywhere where there are pedophiles) to have children.

Actually, I would prevent anyone from montana from being around children and I would think that anyone can be a pedophile, but some people I trust to not be a pedophile.

Although, certain harassment is not right. For example, harassing senators because you think they're illegal immigrants is kind of out there. If a region has a higher chance of a certain behavior then a belief that people from that region will act that way is understandable. Whether or not they are harassed is determined by that action. Christians have a bad habit of trying to convert non-christians or even christians of other faiths and it gets annoying so atheists and such return the favor.

Also, the mosque was approved because the person who asked to build it was trusted. The people who go to the mosque and the things they do in the mosque are the responsibility of the guy who got the approval in the first place. The guy is trusted to allow only certain people into the mosque and is trusted to bring good people into the mosque.

And yes, Germany was a culture. The nazi's didn't just pop up out of nowhere and take over through magic. The german people were down, poor, and suffering. The germans had a strong sense of nation and a strong sense of pride, being made to admit fault for starting the war injured their pride while debt wounded their sense of nation. The nazi's just exploited the german culture to gain power and the german culture allowed the nazi's to take control.

How were you using reductio ad absurdum? I didn't lead to the definite logic that the person is erecting a mosque for the sole purpose of destroying america. The worst possible outcome would be that he is actually constructing a doomsday device that will destroy the world. Although that is also incredibly unlikely.

Besides, I do remember saying "chances are he isn't that evil" so I clearly stated that chances are the negative actions are unlikely. Meaning that while I did say that there was a chance he was a maniac, there was a stronger chance he wasn't. Also, while there is proof that he is a moderate, there is proof that some moderates are actually radicals. There is proof that some people who preach peace are violent. There is proof that some mosques are used to recruit for terror cells and there is proof that some americans are terrorist recruits or recruiters. I have yet to find proof of a building sprouting wings and flying away except in fairy tales. So I will contnue with your supposed "reductio ad absurdum" if the building sprouts wings then it is a fanciful idea and that means we are living in a fantasy world which means elves are real which means orks are real which means that warhammer 40k is real which means intergalactic space travel is real which means Star Wars is real which means R2-D2 is real which means midgets are actually droids. There, I can get silly if you want to, but did that actually prove anything? No not really.


If you want to have fun not truly reading into what I am writing, you can use all of the logic fallacy attacks you want because you are arguing against the wrong thing and the wrong person.

The whole entire time I've been trying to get other people to understand what I think the people opposing it are thinking because the truth is I really don't care if the mosque is built. You are arguing against the reasonings I believe they are having and not arguing against what their reasons truly are. So yeah, go ahead and attack the logic because it isn't my actual logic, its the logic I believe they have.

Although the whole trust thing is a personal belief of mine.

halonachos wrote:Actually, I would prevent anyone from montana from being around children and I would think that anyone can be a pedophile, but some people I trust to not be a pedophile.

Thank you Mussolini!

Mussolini? He wasn't smart at all you know, he trusted Hitler. Not a guy to trust you know,

He sided with Hitler, but whether or not he trusted him is up for debate.

It is possible and relatively safe to say that there was at least a modicum of trust involved in this situation.

I disagree. It is possible to be forced into seemingly trusting situations by other circumstances.

He sided with Hitler, but whether or not he trusted him is up for debate.

I think it's safe to say there was (as halonachos says) a modicum of trust, but there was clearly not full trust.

I recall seeing a show about an Italian reporter (I think) who Mussolini sent to Germany to look for evidence of the development of superweapons. Clearly Mussolini didn't fully trust Hitler, but that's also really the default situation for any nation towards any other... For example, Israel spies on the US, even though we're by far their staunchest ally.

Well, their could always be a trust that Hitler would wipe him off of face of the planet if he didn't side with him. Trust can be different from believing that a person never lies.

That's an example of belief, not trust. To trust is to rely on a person or thing. Belief is common in the world, but trust is really pretty rare, at least in my experience; particularly in modern society. You don't have to do a lot of trusting when your life rarely hinges on individual events.

halonachos wrote:Sebster, by sporadic I didn't mean in terms of time, I actually meant in terms of location and population. There are always disrespectful kids, but just because you live in the inner city doesn't mean you kick old people down stairs and just because you come from the suburbs doesn't mean you would help them up.

That was my bad for not clarifying.

Ah, that's fair enough and I agree with you.

[qote]Now with the work sites, there is a difference between doing something that you love and something that is your job. I love doing manual labor; building sheds, shoveling dirt, laying down tar paper, etc. This will not be my job though, I plan to be a trauma surgeon and chances are I will enjoy that job as well, but I love to get my hands dirty.

Now we have people at a construction site and we may have people that love to get their hads dirty, people who fething hate their job, and people who are only there because they decided to drop out of high school. Not every worker there is respectful because they may not love what they are doing.

Its just that from my personal experience I'v found that people who love to do hard work are generally more respectful.