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.

The point I've been making, in what I thought was pretty plain English, is that it isn't a marketing effort to call it a tolerance centre. The guy behind this has put his entire public life into bridging the gap between Islam and the West. Just go look at the books he's written. He's genuine. He really wants this to be a tolerance centre. It is really that straight forward.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with just a tolerance center being built by ground zero. So why are

Yeah, it's a tolerance center with all kinds of admin and civic departments.....I know this. It's also a Mosque. I'm not questioning his intent to build a tolerance center. I'm questioning the logic of building a tolerance center where the location itself is inspiring intolerance. Granted you want to build a tolerance center where intolerance is high, i mean that's the point. But try to pic a spot where the actual location itself does not run contrary to your goals.

He can market and say whatever he wants, many people are not buying it. He may be the savior of the world, but if he is such an expert in tolerance maybe he could find a more tolerable location. OR just get rid of the mosque aspect of it and people won't have as much to cry about. The people he is trying to reach might actually come.

Look many of the 911 terrorists, had been here for years. Their neighbors didn't think they were terrorists, by many accounts they were productive and active members of their community. Not the kind of stuff you expect from terrorists. I'm not saying this guy is a terrorist, affiliated with terrorists...whatever. I'm just pointing out that people are suspicious and scared and probably really could use a place like the Cordoba house. However most of these people are not going to go if there is a Mosque in there. It's just not gonna happen. I think the Mosque aspect itself pretty much dooms this project to fail as a tolerance center.

As for the Israeli tolerance center, if there is one place that needs it, it's Israel. No matter what anybodies claims of legitimacy may say (not even trying to start the argument about who should be in possession), possession being 9/10 of the law says that they can do whatever they want. The fact that they got or even asked permission at one point is mind blowing to me, but it apparently happened...so they say, I haven't seen any proof. In any case as long as they are not desecrating the bodies I think they are good. In the video you can see them smashing caskets, but you don't see any remains, ashes, whatever, you don't see evidence that the remains are still there. (not saying its beneath Israel to desecrate Muslim graves, just in this instance it does not appear to be the case)

If they were given permission they could build anything they want there, strip mall or synagogue, they chose to build a tolerance center, which is probably the best thing they could put there. I think the intentions are sound, the execution is another question. Maybe there were better ways to excavate the land, have a Muslim contractor do it or have the process overseen by an imam, whatever.

The fact is that NYC and Israel could both really use tolerance centers. They both have to find more tolerable solutions to build them.

My question is does anybody know/think the Israelis chose this time specifically to make a political staement because of Kordoba house? It just seams too coincidental. In may ways they are completely different issues, but when emotions are inflamed they can look very similar.

Why carry out the destruction at night then? It's a pretty big step to say "Oh, all those really important graves are empty anyway".

Emperors Faithful wrote:Why carry out the destruction at night then? It's a pretty big step to say "Oh, all those really important graves are empty anyway".

Because it's their MO. It's exactly what they did when they bulldozed people in their homes.

Exactly, if you're carrying out activites at night, more often than not that implies that some sort of clandestine operations are occurring. I mean, if you see your neighbor taking a shovel to the backyard in the middle of the day, you'd think he was doing a bit of gardening or somesuch. If you spot him digging a hole at night alarms would probably go off.

I also like his "I'm not saying this guy is a terrorist, affiliated with terrorists....whatever." I don't know if he meant it, but it came off sort of funny sounding after the sentences before it.

Wait, I'm confused. Am I supposed to hate terroristic Moslems, or "shylockian" Jews?

Andrew1975 wrote:
Yeah, it's a tolerance center with all kinds of admin and civic departments.....I know this. It's also a Mosque.

So are all structures that do not provide floor space.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Look many of the 911 terrorists, had been here for years.

Clearly then, I should report you for suspicious activity.

Andrew1975 wrote: Their neighbors didn't think they were terrorists, by many accounts they were productive and active members of their community.

I think that you are both of these. oh no!

Andrew1975 wrote:
Not the kind of stuff you expect from terrorists.

Not if you assume they are foolish, anyway.

Andrew1975 wrote:
My question is does anybody know/think the Israelis chose this time specifically to make a political staement because of Kordoba house? It just seams too coincidental. In may ways they are completely different issues, but when emotions are inflamed they can look very similar.

The tolerance center is older than, or as old as the Cordoba Center. Read some history.

I also like his "I'm not saying this guy is a terrorist, affiliated with terrorists....whatever.

No what I meant here is that that "I'm not saying the guy is a terrorist, affiliated with terrorists, harbors terrorists, funded or funding terrorists, .....and on and on and on.

Hope that helps.

The tolerance center is older than, or as old as the Cordoba Center. Read some history.

Dogma, that's the point, the construction going on at tolerance center while on the books for years is only being constructed now, seams kind of coincidental.

The rest of your quips, which is all they can be considered, don't even deserve responses. They are one sentence, pointless remarks that when taken in the context that I have written mean absolutely nothing. Maybe they are meant to be humorous, but they fail on that level too. They are as well thought out as your hug is a threat analogy. If you have a point or an opinion please make it, otherwise leave comedy to people that are actually funny.

1 Try to keep up
2 Learn how to argue like and adult.











Automatically Appended Next Post:

Why carry out the destruction at night then? It's a pretty big step to say "Oh, all those really important graves are empty anyway"

.

Have you every tried to do construction in the summer, in the middle east? You'd do it at night too.

There is a video of what is going on. Knowing the hate that these people have for one another don't you think they would have shown evidence of remains being crushed under a bulldozer or something? I guarantee you would see remains being desecrated if that was going on. I'm actually surprised that nobody has faked those images already.

Andrew1975 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Why carry out the destruction at night then? It's a pretty big step to say "Oh, all those really important graves are empty anyway"

.

Have you every tried to do construction in the summer, in the middle east? You'd do it at night too.

That is a very good point. I worked constructiuon in Vegas for a bit over a year and during the summer, the hours the were adjusted to keep us from working during the day as much as possible since it was so hot.
Something like this wasn't really going to be a secret very long with all the means of communication available these days. Working during the night on a project of this size was obviously not going to keep it under wraps.
I don't think it was imagined that people would go by the cemetary the day after the dozers hit it and say, "That's odd, I could have sworn the thing was bigger yesterday. Oh well, must have been my imagination!'"

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:FREE PAKASTILLIA

Free Pacman!

Relapse wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Why carry out the destruction at night then? It's a pretty big step to say "Oh, all those really important graves are empty anyway"

.

Have you every tried to do construction in the summer, in the middle east? You'd do it at night too.

That is a very good point. I worked constructiuon in Vegas for a bit over a year and during the summer, the hours the were adjusted to keep us from working during the day as much as possible since it was so hot.
Something like this wasn't really going to be a secret very long with all the means of communication available these days. Working during the night on a project of this size was obviously not going to keep it under wraps.
I don't think it was imagined that people would go by the cemetary the day after the dozers hit it and say, "That's odd, I could have sworn the thing was bigger yesterday. Oh well, must have been my imagination!'"

Yeah I know, it's like these people have never heard of a siesta! I used to do construction in the summer to pay for college. It was stupid hot, and I was not in the middle east, I can't imagine what it would be like there or Vegas in the scorching summer heat. Some people like to just think that there is always some insidious plot. Not saying Israel is always blameless, but in this case it's just common practice.

It's the same reason we have two seasons where I come from winter and construction, spring doesn't bring flowers, it brings orange barrels.

Doing the excavation at night is at the most going to bring them six hours of secrecy, not nearly enough to get any project done. Besides the fact that the place is lit up like Shea stadium and unless you have ever driven a bulldozer, you have no idea how much noise they make.....it's about as clandestine as blitzkrieg!

Andrew1975 wrote:
Dogma, that's the point, the construction going on at tolerance center while on the books for years is only being constructed now, seams kind of coincidental.

The tolerance center has had to battle a great deal of popular criticism from many sources, and clear many legal hurdles. There were also budgetary issues after the economic collapse. It doesn't appear as this was at all related to Park51.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The rest of your quips, which is all they can be considered, don't even deserve responses.

You found my post droll, or witty? Why thank you!

Andrew1975 wrote:
They are one sentence, pointless remarks that when taken in the context that I have written mean absolutely nothing.

My first comment indicated that any place in which someone can prostrate is essentially a mosque, or place of prostration. Sure, there are structures built in order to facilitate that prostration, but even a grocery store can be a mosque. The idea that they only exist as purpose built structures is an idea caused by the comparison of mosques to churches, which are exclusively purposed structures.

My second, and third comments were about the foolishness inherent in addressing people that are scared of a mosque because they consider the status of a person as a Muslim to be sufficient cause to leap to the category of terrorist.

My fourth comment was about expecting terrorists to be a certain thing that corresponds with whatever people commonly associate with terrorism.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Maybe they are meant to be humorous, but they fail on that level too.

I wouldn't expect you to find humor in biting remarks made at your expense.

Andrew1975 wrote:
They are as well thought out as your hug is a threat analogy.

Since you brought that up:

To threaten someone is to indicate that you will take an action. This action does not have to be intended to cause harm. If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you with a hug. The point of the comment was to illustrate that not all threats are the same, and that, as such, arguing for a single response to all threats is foolish.

Andrew1975 wrote:
1 Try to keep up

You're the only one slowing us down.

Andrew1975 wrote:
2 Learn how to argue like and adult.

Why is my 'adultness' important? I know a lot of adults that have no knowledge of logical fallacies, and make frequent appeals to emotion. These tactics may be convincing to some, but they aren't really a sign of talented argument.

Andrew1975 wrote:
They are one sentence, pointless remarks that when taken in the context that I have written mean absolutely nothing.

dogma wrote:
My first comment indicated that any place in which someone can prostrate is essentially a mosque, or place of prostration. Sure, there are structures built in order to facilitate that prostration, but even a grocery store can be a mosque. The idea that they only exist as purpose built structures is an idea caused by the comparison of mosques to churches, which are exclusively purposed structures.

Then why does the Cordoba center specifically mention that they are building a mosque in the tolerance center if, according to you my bathroom is a Mosque. A blanket can be a Mosque in an emergency but it's not ideal, they are building a fully functioning Mosque specifically built to be a Mosque, which is causing this tolerance center to be labeled as fostering intolerance making its mission and your point meaningless.

dogma wrote:My second, and third comments were about the foolishness inherent in addressing people that are scared of a mosque because they consider the status of a person as a Muslim to be sufficient cause to leap to the category of terrorist.

They are not leaping to the conclusion that he is a terrorist, the are afraid he might be though and unfortunately given past events you can never be too sure. It's called caution. Your probably not going to get in a accident every time you get in the car, most people still put seat belts on though. Anyone who claims to be a tolerance expert should have some basic understanding of human psychology and would understand to put a Mosque there is going to cause concern. Trying to establish a tolerance center is a noble endeavor. Trying establish a mosque, while questionable to some is completely legal and justifiable. Trying to establish a Tolerance center and a Mosque where the Mosque may be considered intolerance is a fail.

dogma wrote:My fourth comment was about expecting terrorists to be a certain thing that corresponds with whatever people commonly associate with terrorism.

That is the whole point though, this is what has caused some people to suspect all Muslims. Unfortunately for Muslims many non Muslim people are now on guard which is why I say a tolerance and education center is so important. But they need to find a more tolerable way to do it or else the people they are trying to reach will never listen.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Maybe they are meant to be humorous, but they fail on that level too.

dogma wrote:I wouldn't expect you to find humor in biting remarks made at your expense.

Oh those were meant to be biting? Now I do find them humorous

Andrew1975 wrote:
They are as well thought out as your hug is a threat analogy.

dogma wrote:Since you brought that up:

To threaten someone is to indicate that you will take an action. This action does not have to be intended to cause harm. If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you with a hug. The point of the comment was to illustrate that not all threats are the same, and that, as such, arguing for a single response to all threats is foolish.

So now you not only prove that you have no idea what a threat is, You also prove that you are lazy and unwilling to do your homework, even to defend yourself. A computer with internet service is for more than a way for people to entertain themselves, try using it for good instead of ignorance.

For your information here is the definition of threat, it took all of two seconds to look up.

threat
  –noun
1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace: He confessed under the threat of imprisonment.
2. an indication or warning of probable trouble: The threat of a storm was in the air.
3. a person or thing that threatens.

Andrew1975 wrote:
1 Try to keep up

dogma wrote:You're the only one slowing us down.

Yeah ok, Watch out or I may threaten you with an education

Andrew1975 wrote:
2 Learn how to argue like and adult.

dogma wrote:Why is my 'adultness' important? I know a lot of adults that have no knowledge of logical fallacies, and make frequent appeals to emotion. These tactics may be convincing to some, but they aren't really a sign of talented argument.

Well because most educated adults use rationale thoughts and facts to support their arguments. Funny ingenuous quips, unsubstantiated claims, and a poor understanding of the basic language you are arguing in ......is generally considered the tactics of petulant children or slow adults.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Then why does the Cordoba center specifically mention that they are building a mosque in the tolerance center if, according to you my bathroom is a Mosque. A blanket can be a Mosque in an emergency but it's not ideal, they are building a fully functioning Mosque specifically built to be a Mosque, which is causing this tolerance center to be labeled as fostering intolerance making its mission and your point meaningless.

Because they are providing open space for prostration, or a place for prostration?

Andrew1975 wrote:
They are not leaping to the conclusion that he is a terrorist, the are afraid he might be though and unfortunately given past events you can never be too sure. It's called caution.

Then why are they not protesting currently existential mosques?

Andrew1975 wrote:
Your probably not going to get in a accident every time you get in the car, most people still put seat belts on though. Anyone who claims to be a tolerance expert should have some basic understanding of human psychology and would understand to put a Mosque there is going to cause concern.

One can understand something while still thinking that its stupid.

Andrew1975 wrote:
That is the whole point though, this is what has caused some people to suspect all Muslims. Unfortunately for Muslims many non Muslim people are now on guard which is why I say a tolerance and education center is so important. But they need to find a more tolerable way to do it or else the people they are trying to reach will never listen.

Others might argue that causing justified controversy is a better way of forcing tolerance.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Oh those were meant to be biting? Now I do find them humorous

I don't care whether or not your psyche was injured, I merely bit at your argument. Admittedly, I made the mistake of saying otherwise above, but my clarification lies before you.

Andrew1975 wrote:
So now you not only prove that you have no idea what a threat is, You also prove that you are lazy and unwilling to do your homework, even to defend yourself. A computer with internet service is for more than a way for people to entertain themselves, try using it for good instead of ignorance.

For your information here is the definition of threat, it took all of two seconds to look up.

threat
  –noun
1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace: He confessed under the threat of imprisonment.
2. an indication or warning of probable trouble: The threat of a storm was in the air.
3. a person or thing that threatens.

Even if that's the case, hugs can be contextually presumed to be threats. Notably you might feel threatened if a woman other than one you were married to said that she was going to hug you.

Moreover, Meriam-Webster posits that 'threat' can be an indication of anything impending, which indicates that threat does indeed mean what I said it does, and that threat is a word with an ambiguous and disputed meaning. Both of which support my argument.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Yeah ok, Watch out or I may threaten you with an education

Yes, for example, that was a threat.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Well because most educated adults...

Educated adults? Switching premises is a sign of a weak argument.

Anyone else find it amusing that someone is offering to give dogma an education in argumentation?

Dogma wrote Yes, for example, that was a threat.

No that was a joke.

Dogma wrote Then why are they not protesting currently existential mosques?

They do, and have. Are you saying New York city is the only place where people think Muslims are terrorists? However NYC being the site of the largest terrorist attack in world history emotions run a little hotter there. It's why I think that spot is maybe the best spot ever for a tolerance center. But maybe the worst place for a tolerance center with a Mosque. By nature a tolerance center should be unbiased, having a Mosque in it make it unbiased, its prejudicial.

Dogma wrote One can understand something while still thinking that its stupid.

So caution and seat belts are stupid? I can understand excessive, but not stupid.

Dogma wrote Others might argue that causing justified controversy is a better way of forcing tolerance.

Others think a lot of things. Generally the idea behind tolerance movements are to eliminate controversy.

Dogma wrote I don't care whether or not your psyche was injured, I merely bit at your argument.

It wasn't injured it was humored

Dogma wrote Even if that's the case, hugs can be contextually presumed to be threats. Notably you might feel threatened if a woman other than one you were married to said that she was going to hug you.

Moreover, Meriam-Webster posits that 'threat' can be an indication of anything impending, which indicates that threat does indeed mean what I said it does, and that threat is a word with an ambiguous and disputed meaning. Both of which support my argument.

This was not the context of your argument. I can post it if you would like. Your argument made hugs analogous to Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. While I found that to be a joke, in the context of the argument its exactly what your analogy meant. Now I figured you were just making a poor argument. Now it's just apparent you don't understand the language.

Dogma wrote Educated adults? Switching premises is a sign of a weak argument.

I used the term "Educated adult" because you failed to grasp the use of the word adult in an earlier post. Whereas in the context that I stated "Adult" you took it as age, instead of a level of mental maturity, showed that you did not have a complete grasp of the word. As I already had to educate you on the term Threat I just assumed giving you and education on the term Adult would just seam preachy. But if you insist.

Adult 1
Definition: Having arrived at maturity, or to full size and strength; matured; as, an adult person or plant; an adult ape; an adult age.

The fact that I have to educate you on words like adult shows that you are not at a level of maturity to argue like an adult.

Keep it up you are going to owe me tuition

Andrew1975 wrote:
No that was a joke.

And a threat. Things can be classified in more than one way. For example, people can be Americans and New Yorkers.

Andrew1975 wrote:
They do, and have. Are you saying New York city is the only place where people think Muslims are terrorists? However NYC being the site of the largest terrorist attack in world history emotions run a little hotter there. It's why I think that spot is maybe the best spot ever for a tolerance center. But maybe the worst place for a tolerance center with a Mosque. By nature a tolerance center should be unbiased, having a Mosque in it make it unbiased, its prejudicial.

Why is that prejudicial? Prejudice implies that one judges something before receiving evidence of it. What is prejudged by the presence of a mosque, and why is that supposed prejudice bad?

Andrew1975 wrote:
So caution and seat belts are stupid? I can understand excessive, but not stupid.

Terrible straw man.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Others think a lot of things. Generally the idea behind tolerance movements are to eliminate controversy.

Generally is not always,

Andrew1975 wrote:
This was not the context of your argument. I can post it if you would like. You argument made hugs analogous to Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel.

Post all you want, because that's not what was stated, and your replies here indicate that on their own. If I stated that the two were analogous, then that would have been your original line of attack as that is a strong criticism.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I used the term "Educated adult" because you failed to grasp the use of the word adult in an earlier post.

No, I was able to ascertain what you meant. I just felt that the word you used was poorly chosen. Adult does not mean intelligent, wise, or salient.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Whereas in the context that I stated "Adult" you took it as age, instead of a level of mental maturity, showed that you did not have a complete grasp of the word.

People that attain full growth do not necessarily attain wisdom, intelligence, or salience.

Andrew1975 wrote:
As I already had to educate you on the term Threat I just assumed giving you and education on the term Adult would just seam preachy. But if you insist.

Adult 1
Definition: Having arrived at maturity, or to full size and strength; matured; as, an adult person or plant; an adult ape; an adult age.

Keep it up you are going to owe me tuition

Size, maturity, and strength are not relevant to this argument. Unless you feel that my argument wasn't mature, big, or strong enough?

Edit: clarity

Dogma wrote Read your own definition

Definition: Having arrived at maturity, or to full size and strength; matured; as, an adult person or plant; an adult ape; an adult age.

Do I have to educate you on the word maturity also?

Seriously?

Dogma wrote Why is that prejudicial? Prejudice implies that one judges something before receiving evidence of it. What is prejudged by the presence of a mosque, and why is that supposed prejudice bad?

Now I have to define prejudicial? Look if you can't see how having a Mosque in a tolerance center made to bring Muslims and Non-Muslims together is prejudicial then you don't understand the full use term prejudicial as can be seen by your poor definition. Which if you understood prejudice you would know why that is bad.

Stop writing down what you think a word means and actually look it up. It might help your arguments. Or better yet, learn the language.

Dogma wrote Post all you want, because that's not what was stated, and your replies here indicate that on their own. If I stated that the two were analogous, then that would have been your original line of attack as that is a strong criticism.

OK

Andrew: Why is everyone so concerned with disproportional threats? A threat is a threat. Don't attack me if you are afraid of what might come back.

Dogma: Really? If I threaten you with a hug, am I doing the same thing as threatening you wit a gun?

Without posting the entire post, it was about military response to an attack. In this context a threat is a military capability hence the word attack.

Dogma wrote No, I was able to ascertain what you meant. I just felt that the word you used was poorly chosen. Adult does not mean intelligent, wise, or salient.

You think it's poor because you don't understand English. Adult does mean intelligent, wise, salient, mature. Not only do you need a dictionary you need a thesaurus!

Dogma wrote Size, maturity, and strength are not relevant to this argument. Unless you feel that my argument wasn't mature, big, or strong enough?

Nice edit, looks like you found that thesaurus too late as i have already posted your original statment.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Definition: Having arrived at maturity, or to full size and strength; matured; as, an adult person or plant; an adult ape; an adult age.

Do I have to educate you on the word maturity also?

Seriously?

No, given that I just articulated that precise definition above, you need only explain to me why the use of that word was merited.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Now I have to define prejudicial? Look if you can't see how having a Mosque in a tolerance center made to bring Muslims and Non-Muslims together is prejudicial then you don't understand the full use term prejudicial as can be seen by your poor definition. Which if you understood prejudice you would know why that is bad.

Stop writing down what you think a word means and actually look it up. It might help your arguments. Or better yet, learn the language.

This is fun, usually I'm the one stating that with respect to people. Pray tell, what meaning of 'prejudicial' justifies the manner in which you used it?

Andrew1975 wrote:
OK

Andrew: Why is everyone so concerned with disproportional threats? A threat is a threat. Don't attack me if you are afraid of what might come back.

Dogma: Really? If I threaten you with a hug, am I doing the same thing as threatening you wit a gun?

Without posting the entire post, it was about military response to an attack. In this context a threat is a military capability hence the word attack.

If we are to limit context to only that which you mentioned, then threat doesn't reference military capability at all, it references only 'attack'. However, your post extended beyond attack, and referenced any hostile capability.

I'm left to wonder why you would post only a selected portion of your post.

Andrew1975 wrote:
You think it's poor because you don't understand English. Adult does mean intelligent, wise, salient, mature. Not only do you need a dictionary you need a thesaurus!

No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Nice edit, looks like you found that thesaurus too late as i have already posted your original statment.

Yes, I corrected an error. People make errors; regrettable but true.

edit: spelling.

Nurglitch wrote:Anyone else find it amusing that someone is offering to give dogma an education in argumentation?

About time someone gave that racist his comeuppance!

Relapse wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Why carry out the destruction at night then? It's a pretty big step to say "Oh, all those really important graves are empty anyway"

.

Have you every tried to do construction in the summer, in the middle east? You'd do it at night too.

That is a very good point. I worked constructiuon in Vegas for a bit over a year and during the summer, the hours the were adjusted to keep us from working during the day as much as possible since it was so hot.
Something like this wasn't really going to be a secret very long with all the means of communication available these days. Working during the night on a project of this size was obviously not going to keep it under wraps.
I don't think it was imagined that people would go by the cemetary the day after the dozers hit it and say, "That's odd, I could have sworn the thing was bigger yesterday. Oh well, must have been my imagination!'"

True this. To be fair I should admit that they were working both day and at night, so it's obvious that working at night wasn't meant to keep people out of the loop. It does, however, make it harder to organize a protest at night or whatever. I don't know if they had any ulterior motives behind working at night, but I don't think anyone else can say for certain that it doesn't seem the least bit suspicious.

And then there's also this.

It's a pretty big step to say "Oh, all those really important graves are empty anyway"

Dogma wrote No, given that I just articulated that precise definition above, you need only explain to me why the use of that word was merited.

No you didn't you only proved that you fail to understand the contextual meaning of term adult in our conversation.

Definition 5 : fully developed; experienced
Synonyms: accomplished, aged, completed, conditioned, consummate, enlightened, enriched, filled out, finished, fit, full, full-blown, full-fledged, fully grown, grown, grown-up, in readiness, increased, informed, judicious, learned, mature, matured, mellow, overdue, perfected, plump, prepared, prime, ready, ripened, sagacious, seasoned, skilled, skillful, sound, timely, usable, versed, well-timed, wise

Dogma wrote This is fun, usually I'm the one stating that with respect to people. Pray tell, what meaning of 'prejudicial' justifies the manner in which you used it?

You are kidding me right? You educate people on how to argue? Who? Foreigners? Other people that don't have a grasp of the English language? Wow the trades are slaking!

# prejudice - bias: a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation

If you can't understand that having a Muslim Mosque which spreads Muslim influence in a place that is supposed to proactively support unbiased religious tolerance is prejudicial, than I can see why you fail to grasp most of the concepts of this argument. I'll put it in terms maybe you will understand. BIASED HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE. It's no longer unbiased, hence prejudicial.

Please don't make me explained bias to you also.

Dogma wrote If we are to limit context to only that which you mentioned, then threat doesn't reference military capability at all, it references only 'attack'. However, your post extended beyond attack, and referenced any hostile capability.

I'm left to wonder why you would post only a selected portion of your post

.

So now a hug is a threat and an attack and hostile capability?

I'm not going to post an 10 page post to prove a point that is glaringly obvious. But here is the rest for you because you appear to be a glutton for punishment. (no you don't actually appear to me as in like an apparition this word also has more than one meaning GET A THESAURUS!)

Andrew Wrote There are cases in the caucuses where the Russians were called to an area because many of the local villages were being terrorized. They found out which village the terrorists were coming from, ran it over (now the accounts never said who was all killed in the raid, but we can guess, maybe they leveled the place maybe not). The terrorist activity stopped. The rest of the villages got on with their lives. Sucked for that village, but saved the lives of everyone else.

Dogma wrote You first have to presume that all others were under a disproportionate amount of threat.

Andrew Wrote Why is everyone so concerned with disproportional threats? A threat is a threat. Don't attack me if you are afraid of what might come back. Small weak people hide behind disproportional attacks because small attacks is all they can manage. They would do more if they could. They can't so they cry foul when someone smacks them hard. Don't start none won't be none.

Dogma wrote Really? If I threaten you with a hug, am I doing the same thing as threatening you wit a gun?

See nobody really threatens someone with a hug. It's not a threat, it's none threatening. Unless they are a stalker or something, then it is a threat that is the same as threatening me with a gun. You threaten some girl in a dark alley with a hug...you know what, you may get shot, justifiably.

It's a joke phrase and an improper use of the word for comic effect. It's not a legitimate definition.

Dogma wrote No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same.

Yes, yes actually that is the dictionary definition, GET A DICTIONARY!

Dogma wrote Yes, I corrected an error. People make errors; regrettable but true.

No you added this

Dogma wrote "Size, maturity, and strength are not relevant to this argument. Unless you feel that my argument wasn't mature, big, or strong enough?"

Adult means more then the words you decide to assign to it, or think it may mean. Maturity does matter, you might want to look up the word. The rest of these words are you trying to dictate what Adult means, fortunately you can not dictate which acceptable meaning of the word I use in my sentence. You have to use the context of the sentence to figure out which meaning, unfortunately you appear so unfamiliar with the English language, that it must be impossible for you. The word adult was not poorly used you just have a poor understanding of the word.

I can't in all reality believe that you fail to understand these words. I hope to all that is holy that you are trying to argue semantics in order to frustrate me. Again not part of an honest, intelligent i.e. Adult conversation.

I have made an error however as I have allowed an good thread to turn into and English lesson. I apologize to everyone else who is actually interested in the topic.

RustyKnight About time someone gave that racist his comeuppance!

Look I don't know Dogma all that well, I'm new here and couldn't remark on that. I do however think a racist would probably not be defending the NYC Mosque, iguess it could depend on who he is racist against. I have yet to see a reason to label him as such. That's a big statement and should not be tossed around lightly.

I actually commend Dogma for his principles (That I have observed so far) and I think tolerance center and even the Mosque is a good idea if done properly, but currently its not, so it fails. I've seen him actually bring up good points (on other posts), I just think it's sad that he reverts to childish tactics sometimes and pretends to be ignorant when he really knows the meanings of things but wants to play at being petulant. He's not stupid (he's provided good facts, again on other posts). I think he believes he can frustrate people into giving up an argument. It's too bad I think he could do better. But I''m new here, I don't understand the meta of this site, maybe it's my fault for expecting people to know what they talk about, and talk about what they know on this site. I like real conversations, speaking of which.

can we get back on topic.

True this. To be fair I should admit that they were working both day and at night, so it's obvious that working at night wasn't meant to keep people out of the loop. It does, however, make it harder to organize a protest at night or whatever. I don't know if they had any ulterior motives behind working at night, but I don't think anyone else can say for certain that it doesn't seem the least bit suspicious.

And then there's also this.

It's a pretty big step to say "Oh, all those really important graves are empty anyway"

So are they working day and night, are you sure? Your statement seams to be saying both. I thought it was just at night. If they are working day and night why did you make a point of them working at night? Damn, the whole heat thing was making sense to me. Now I think showing the night work is just some B.S. Palestinian spin tactic.

"To be fair I should admit that they were working both day and at night, so it's obvious that working at night wasn't meant to keep people out of the loop"

I mean this is what I am talking about! Please argue like adults, not lawyers!

Emperors Faithful why bring up night work in the first place like two posts ago? It's a disingenuous statement! Is winning an argument on Dakka Dakka that much of an accomplishment or pride issue that people reduce themselves to tricks? I argue because to me it's interesting, I try to look at things from every direction, but sometimes I miss. It's good to see other peoples views. To get different perspectives. But when you purposely present fallacies in your arguments, you're just lying. Especially when I don't support either of these projects, I think they both need a lot of work before they can be considered wins. You make the whole exercise fruitless. I don't learn, you don't learn, we both walk away more ignorant than before.

To answer your question......I think I've already covered this. There are so many eyes and so much press coverage of this operation if the Israelis were desecrating the graves you would know it. There would be videos and pictures of actual remains, (skulls, bones). I haven't seen it, not saying it's not there,just that I haven't seen it. Knowing the hate that these two sides have for each other I'm actually amazed I haven't even seen fake ones yet

Andrew1975 wrote:
No you didn't you only proved that you fail to understand the contextual meaning of term adult in our conversation.

Definition 5 : fully developed; experienced
Synonyms: accomplished, aged, completed, conditioned, consummate, enlightened, enriched, filled out, finished, fit, full, full-blown, full-fledged, fully grown, grown, grown-up, in readiness, increased, informed, judicious, learned, mature, matured, mellow, overdue, perfected, plump, prepared, prime, ready, ripened, sagacious, seasoned, skilled, skillful, sound, timely, usable, versed, well-timed, wise

No, I articulated the exact meaning that you cited above; word for word. You are now attempting to pretend that I didn't do that by seeking a different meaning, and quoting a set of synonyms, which do not possess the same meaning as the word which you used.

Sorry, misuse by bulk doesn't work on me.

Andrew1975 wrote:
You are kidding me right? You educate people on how to argue? Who? Foreigners? Other people that don't have a grasp of the English language? Wow the trades are slaking!

# prejudice - bias: a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation

If you can't understand that having a Muslim Mosque which spreads Muslim influence in a place that is supposed to proactively support unbiased religious tolerance is prejudicial, than I can see why you fail to grasp most of the concepts of this argument. I'll put it in terms maybe you will understand. BIASED HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE. It's no longer unbiased, hence prejudicial.

Please don't make me explained bias to you also.

A Muslim mosque? Are there Christian mosques now?

Regardless, why are you assuming that the tolerance center in question supposed to be 'unbiased' (using 'prejudice' in that way is an obvious semantic game, but whatever). Park51 has never claimed to be anything other than a thing attempting to promote tolerance of Islam; meaning that it has a necessary bias. Not unlike the self-described bias towards inter-Jew tolerance that is the focus of the Simon Weisenthal tolerance museum in Jerusalem.

Andrew1975 wrote:
So now a hug is a threat and an attack and hostile capability?

No one would be put in trouble if they were hugged by another woman?

Andrew1975 wrote:
I'm not going to post an 10 page post to prove a point that is glaringly obvious. But here is the rest for you because you appear to be a glutton for punishment. (no you don't actually appear to me as in like an apparition this word also has more than one meaning GET A THESAURUS!)

The glaringly obvious point is that you are ignorant of any meaning of any word which does not support your current argument. You are the worst sort of 'intellectual'.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Andrew Wrote There are cases in the caucuses where the Russians were called to an area because many of the local villages were being terrorized. They found out which village the terrorists were coming from, ran it over (now the accounts never said who was all killed in the raid, but we can guess, maybe they leveled the place maybe not). The terrorist activity stopped. The rest of the villages got on with their lives. Sucked for that village, but saved the lives of everyone else.

Dogma wrote You first have to presume that all others were under a disproportionate amount of threat.

Andrew Wrote Why is everyone so concerned with disproportional threats? A threat is a threat. Don't attack me if you are afraid of what might come back. Small weak people hide behind disproportional attacks because small attacks is all they can manage. They would do more if they could. They can't so they cry foul when someone smacks them hard. Don't start none won't be none.

Dogma wrote Really? If I threaten you with a hug, am I doing the same thing as threatening you wit a gun?

See nobody really threatens someone with a hug. It's not a threat, it's none threatening. Unless they are a stalker or something, then it is a threat that is the same as threatening me with a gun. You threaten some girl in a dark alley with a hug...you know what, you may get shot, justifiably.

So, it is possible to threaten people with hugs, and people do indeed threaten them with hugs. Simply because someone is not 'normal ' does not mean we can eliminate their actions from categorical consideration.

Andrew1975 wrote:
It's a joke phrase and an improper use of the word for comic effect. It's not a legitimate definition.

Why did you just agree with me if you feel this way?

Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes, yes actually that is the dictionary definition, GET A DICTIONARY!

Uh, no, its not. Synonyms have the same, or nearly the same, meaning...or nearly the same.

Andrew1975 wrote:
No you added this

Dogma wrote "Size, maturity, and strength are not relevant to this argument. Unless you feel that my argument wasn't mature, big, or strong enough?"

Did I? I was unaware that you were a mod, thus capable of reading my posting history. That element was in my initial post, and you quoted it, so I'm not sure what you're attempting to prove here.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Adult means more then the words you decide to assign to it, or think it may mean. Maturity does matter, you might want to look up the word.

Yeah, it involves 'seasoning' and other such nonsense. Its a platitude outside the hard sciences.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The rest of these words are you trying to dictate what Adult means, fortunately you can not dictate which acceptable meaning of the word I use in my sentence. You have to use the context of the sentence to figure out which meaning, unfortunately you appear so unfamiliar with the English language, that it must be impossible for you. The word adult was not poorly used you just have a poor understanding of the word.

You could have used the words intellgient, wise, or mature and been far clearer in your meaning. By using the word adult you opened youtrself to this whole line of criticism, which is really just poor argument.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I can't in all reality believe that you fail to understand these words. I hope to all that is holy that you are trying to argue semantics in order to frustrate me. Again not part of an honest, intelligent i.e. Adult conversation.

I have made an error however as I have allowed an good thread to turn into and English lesson. I apologize to everyone else who is actually interested in the topic.

Just so you know, I'm a logician. I'm not arguing semantics to frustrate you, I'm arguing semantics (which doesn't mean what you think it does) because I think you lack any competence.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I actually commend Dogma for his principles (That I have observed so far) and I think tolerance center and even the Mosque is a good idea if done properly, but currently its not, so it fails.

I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I've seen him actually bring up good points (on other posts), I just think it's sad that he reverts to childish tactics sometimes and pretends to be ignorant when he really knows the meanings of things but wants to play at being petulant. He's not stupid (he's provided good facts, again on other posts). I think he believes he can frustrate people into giving up an argument. It's too bad I think he could do better. But I''m new here, I don't understand the meta of this site, maybe it's my fault for expecting people to know what they talk about, and talk about what they know on this site. I like real conversations, speaking of which.

Lesson from a philosopher: people that ask seemingly meaningless questions likely know your argument better than you do.

I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting.

You have proven this without a doubt...Have a hug.

next

Is that a threat or a gift?

Emperors Faithful wrote:Eventually there is a shot of a grave being demolished in broad daylight.

Oops. Not true.

No one seems to have been able to get anywhere near the graves, all are watching from the sidelines. If reports of Israeli gaurds beating trespassers are true that explains it. The closest we get is that bulldozer demolishing a grave. What did you expect? A skull to fly out and land in front of the camera?

Not exactly, but yeah kind of. With the kind of video equipment they can get their hands on it should not be hard. All you would need is a telephoto lens. If they have a full network camera crew there, I'm sure there are newspaper reporters and photographers. Someone would have seen something.

Sorry if it appeared that I went off there, It's just arguing with Dogma is very frustrating. The most Illogical logician I've ever heard of.

Andrew1975 wrote:

No one seems to have been able to get anywhere near the graves, all are watching from the sidelines. If reports of Israeli gaurds beating trespassers are true that explains it. The closest we get is that bulldozer demolishing a grave. What did you expect? A skull to fly out and land in front of the camera?

Not exactly, but yeah kind of. With the kind of video equipment they can get their hands on it should not be hard. All you would need is a telephoto lens. If they have a full network camera crew there, I'm sure there are newspaper reporters and photographers. Someone would have seen something.

Someone did see something. Doesn't mean they caught it on camera. Journalists (presumably Arab journalists) are being beaten if they try to film it. Even then, I doubt very much that the Isrealis are going to all those skulls and bones for further media footage, leaving only the rubble stones behind. You cannot seriously tell me that there are no bodies in these graves. It's ridiculous.
Hey, guess what! I made another mistake. After watching the Video a third time I just realised that, while there are screen shots in the day, the demolitions are only taken place at night. Oops.
Even though construction at night makes sense to avoid the heat, why only at midnight? Mid-afternoon is usually cool enough to start working, so the dead of night really does an attempt at a cover-up. Looking at some posts here however, I'd bet that if Israel formed a band called "Palestinian Babies on Spikes" few would bat an eyelid.

Sorry if it appeared that I went off there, It's just arguing with Dogma is very frustrating. The most Illogical logician I've ever heard of.

Eh, I can't keep up with the crowd so I don't even bother getting involved in intellectual fisticuffs.

This thread is awesome and you are all awesome.

Andrew1975 wrote: It's just arguing with Dogma is very frustrating. The most Illogical logician I've ever heard of.

Actually, when I'm paying full attention to an argument and not just making rhetorical quips, I'm working from nothing but formal logic. This is very frustrating to people that aren't used to sparring with someone who does that, as the whole point is to eliminate mere rationality by progressing in as logical a fashion as possible. I don't do this very often on Dakka, unless we're actually talking about philosophy or something similar, but you attacked my argumentative abilities.

To be honest, I'm surpirsed you wanted to play the semantic game with me, as it was obvious that, in all but two instances, I was baiting you in response to insults. The other two, of course, related to 'threat' and 'prejudice'; two words that I honestly did not feel that you understood. Though that may simply be due to the fact that you appear to be a very linear thinker; ie. you tend to understand things in one way, while struggling to see other possible interpretations. I don't mean that last bit as an insult, as you seem to have a sound understanding of your take on things.

Though that may simply be due to the fact that you appear to be a very linear thinker; ie. you tend to understand things in one way, while struggling to see other possible interpretations.

No, I don't think it was that. I mean when I said "learn to argue like an adult" it was obvious to anybody that I did not mean argue like a person of a certain age, that's just silly. Threats are by nature indicative of causing harm. A threat assessment does not include counting the enemies ability to give hugs to your troops. The use of the term hug as a threat is only viable as an oxymoron, it had no place in the argument. 100 lashes with a wet noodle is not a threat!

The fact that you followed it up with more semantic debates, and pretended not to know the full meanings of words, and then injected your chosen meanings, well i felt it was underhanded and not worthy tactics. But whatevs everyone has their style, yours is more guerrilla, then I appreciate though. It's a fair tactic, but hardly sporting.

If your intent was simply to derail the argument, then well done. I hope it gives you warm fuzzies.

Someone did see something. Doesn't mean they caught it on camera.

Yeah but you can never trust anything either of these players say. Until someone shows proof, it didn't happen. That's why I even questioned the permission that Israel got. They never say who gave them permission or show a copy of it. You can take photographs from so far away with a good camera, there really is no excuse for the lack of evidence.