Ground Zero Mosque. Yes or No?

[Overlord Nadrian]

But it's nowhere near the site, it's two whole blocks away!

 

[TrolleyDave]

there will be people in who it provokes an emotional response over an intellectual one. It's human nature.
That is animal nature. Human nature would be to have those emotions, but analyze them critically instead of acting upon them. Reason and logic are what supposedly separate us from lesser beings.


Fair enough, I can accept that. Then call it animal nature. Like I say, I would never argue that anyone has the right to stop them but if someone feels it's wrong they should be entitled to say and other people should be entitled to explain why they think that person is wrong. It's not an action I would personally take as I would feel insensitive and like I was being morally dubious. It's just who I am and how I'm programmed. If they were to slap any religious building near there it would invoke the same emotional feeling.

QUOTE(Ellie @ Aug 23 2010, 08:15 PM)

But it's nowhere near the site, it's two whole blocks away!

I know it isn't, but it still feels wrong to me. We can debate rights, why it's ok, and why my response is irrational. And hell, I'll even agree with you. It still won't change my mind and it still it won't change the fact that to me it just feels wrong.

 

[p1ngpong]

there will be people in who it provokes an emotional response over an intellectual one. It's human nature.

That is animal nature. Human nature would be to have those emotions, but analyze them critically instead of acting upon them. Reason and logic are what supposedly separate us from lesser beings.

Fair enough, I can accept that. Then call it animal nature. Like I say, I would never argue that anyone has the right to stop them but if someone feels it's wrong they should be entitled to say and other people should be entitled to explain why they think they're wrong. It's not an action I would personally take as I would feel insensitive and like I was being morally dubious. It's just who I am and how I'm programmed. If they were to slap any religious building near there it would invoke the same emotional feeling.

An animals nature is more civilised than a humans in a way. Animals only fight or kill to survive and reproduce. They don't kill out of beliefs, or hate, or prejudice, or anything like that. We use our reasoning to justify the unreasonable. Wars didn't exist before man did. We invented that. We are waging unreasonable wars because of an unreasonable act right now in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or at least that's how some want to justify those wars. If we were more like animals 9/11 would have never happened in the first place. Those lesser beings aren't capable of that kind of hate to begin with.

The world isn't some kind of utopia you know. Its a nasty place, human nature is responsible for that, and solely responsible for it.

 

[Blood Fetish]

While I can appreciate you being honest, if you admit that you are being irrational then there is no point in trying to sway you with rational discussion.

PingPong:
All sorts of animals kill purely for sport. Additionally, there are many groups of animals (of the same species) which do in fact fight within themselves.

 

[Magmorph]

there will be people in who it provokes an emotional response over an intellectual one. It's human nature.

That is animal nature. Human nature would be to have those emotions, but analyze them critically instead of acting upon them. Reason and logic are what supposedly separate us from lesser beings.

Fair enough, I can accept that. Then call it animal nature. Like I say, I would never argue that anyone has the right to stop them but if someone feels it's wrong they should be entitled to say and other people should be entitled to explain why they think they're wrong. It's not an action I would personally take as I would feel insensitive and like I was being morally dubious. It's just who I am and how I'm programmed. If they were to slap any religious building near there it would invoke the same emotional feeling.

An animals nature is more civilised than a humans in a way. Animals only fight or kill to survive and reproduce. They don't kill out of beliefs, or hate, or prejudice, or anything like that. We use our reasoning to justify the unreasonable. Wars didn't exist before man did. We invented that. We are waging unreasonable wars because of an unreasonable act right now in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or at least that's how some want to justify those wars. If we were more like animals 9/11 would have never happened in the first place. Those lesser beings aren't capable of that kind of hate to begin with.

The world isn't some kind of utopia you know. Its a nasty place, human nature is responsible for that, and solely responsible for it.

Humans are a species of animal. I don't know why there has to be a separation of humans and animals.

 

[_Chaz_]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0
I have nothing more to say.

Why has no one quoted this?!

This video contains EVERYTHING that needs to be focused on.

 

[Overlord Nadrian]

Why has no one quoted this?!

This video contains EVERYTHING that needs to be focused on.

Because it is harder to add something useful to a post that already contains everything that should be focused on.

It's easier to bash other people's opinions (and, to be honest, it's a lot more fun, too).

 

[p1ngpong]

While I can appreciate you being honest, if you admit that you are being irrational then there is no point in trying to sway you with rational discussion.

An irrational act has resulted in a long term irrational response from people. This isnt the first time that has happened and it wont be the last.

PingPong:
All sorts of animals kill purely for sport. Additionally, there are many groups of animals (of the same species) which do in fact fight within themselves.

A cat may kill a mouse sure. But it doesn't kill that mouse out of hatred or prejudice. A stag may fight another stag but its for the progression of the species, there's no malice between them. They don't do it because of ideological differences. Only man is capable of such meaningless destruction.

QUOTE(BobTheJoeBob @ Aug 23 2010, 10:16 AM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0
I have nothing more to say.

Why has no one quoted this?!

This video contains EVERYTHING that needs to be focused on.

That video pretty much sums up how ludicrous this all is. But that just human nature for you.

 

[Slyakin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0
I have nothing more to say.

Why has no one quoted this?!

This video contains EVERYTHING that needs to be focused on.

You are right. There is A FUCKING CHURCH there. Why is America such a hypocrite in this situation?

 

[TrolleyDave]

While I can appreciate you being honest, if you admit that you are being irrational then there is no point in trying to sway you with rational discussion.

And I appreciate your politeness and courtesy.

Emotion is a powerful thing, and for me sometimes trumps logic and reasoning. For me just because something can be rationalised doesn't necessarily make it feel morally right.

 

[Blood Fetish]

It would seem to me that rationality is a prerequisite for morality.

 

[_Chaz_]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0
I have nothing more to say.

Why has no one quoted this?!

This video contains EVERYTHING that needs to be focused on.

You are right. There is A FUCKING CHURCH there. Why is America such a hypocrite in this situation?

Actually, there are two.

 

[TrolleyDave]

It would seem to me that rationality is a prerequisite for morality.

Not always in my opinion. It's pretty easy to rationalise most things as far as rights are concerned.

 

[_Chaz_]

It would seem to me that rationality is a prerequisite for morality.

Not always in my opinion. It's pretty easy to rationalise most things as far as rights are concerned.

If morality is irrational, can it truly be called moral?

 

[Bri]

For me just because something can be rationalised doesn't necessarily make it feel morally right.

While I agree that something isn't necessarily morally right just because it can be rationalized, that's a red herring. We were discussing your opinion which you said wasn't rational. The question is whether an irrational position can be morally right. I don't see how it can be.

-Bri

 

[Slyakin]

For me just because something can be rationalised doesn't necessarily make it feel morally right.

Of course something isn't necessarily morally right just because it can be rationalized. However, that's a red herring since we weren't discussing whether anything that can be rationalized is moral. We were discussion your opinion which you said wasn't rational. The question is whether something irrational can be morally right. I don't see how it can.

-Bri

Mah head hurtz.

Still, they should build the community center.

 

[TrolleyDave]

If morality is irrational, can it truly be called moral?
QUOTE(Bri @ Aug 23 2010, 09:26 PM) While I agree that something isn't necessarily morally right just because it can be rationalized, that's a red herring. We were discussing your opinion which you said wasn't rational. The question is whether an irrational position can be morally right. I don't see how it can be.

-Bri

Ok, let's see if I can answer this, as it's a very good question. It's taking us off track slightly but it's a good example of why an irrational opinion can be morally right. And please don't for one second think I'm comparing the example I'm about to use to the building of a Islamic Community Centre/Prayer Hall. It's just a nice easy example.

Do you think a man of 50 marrying an 11 year old girl is morally acceptable?

 

[Blood Fetish]

It would seem to me that rationality is a prerequisite for morality.

Not always in my opinion. It's pretty easy to rationalise most things as far as rights are concerned.

If something cannot be rationalized then it has no structure. There is no criteria to apply to other situations. Instead you are left with a situation in which anything that any person says is moral is moral, simply because they they claim it to be. This obviously renders the entire concept of morality bankrupt.

TLDR: if you cannot explain why you believe something then perhaps you should question why you believe it.

 

[_Chaz_]

Ok, let's see if I can answer this, as it's a very good question. It's taking us off track slightly but it's a good example of why an irrational opinion can be morally right. And please don't for one second think I'm comparing the example I'm about to use to the building of a Islamic Community Centre/Prayer Hall. It's just a nice easy example.

Do you think a man of 50 marrying an 11 year old girl is morally acceptable?

No, but it's also not very rational.

 

[Blood Fetish]

Do you think a man of 50 marrying an 11 year old girl is morally acceptable?

No, and let me explain rationally why that is the case. It is a well known scientific fact that the brain is still undergoing rapid development during childhood years and this actually continues well into the 20s. Due to this children lack higher thought-processes like abstraction, the concept of the self, and long-term consequences. It is for these same reasons that children are not allowed to smoke, drink, sign contracts, do pornography, etc.

Given that criteria a man of 50 marrying an 11 year old is not acceptable, as it is very likely the child does not fully understand the contract they are getting into.