If we end up on the same side of anything, as we did here, it’s the exception rather than the rule.

audiculous on June 4, 2010 at 6:31 PM

Interesting, but that seems to be the case for most at Hot Air. I've yet to find a single source of agreement.

audiculous on June 4, 2010 at 6:41 PM

Sure, and that happened here as well, but that's immigrants (and specifically illegal immigrants) making their own choices rather than being given a push by the government.

I’ve had some great fights with him.

audiculous on June 4, 2010 at 1:58 PM

I find this a little doubtful unless you were both arguing on the same side of a specific debate but had minor quibbles with each other.

“tends to limit’ mean banning. It means slowing the rate, choosing entrants with greater scrutiny, and putting more effort in monitoring the activities of immigrants.

audiculous on June 4, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Sorry, I didn't mean to go that far either. I worded part of it oddly. I just don't see much significant coming out of the restrictions your article discussed in that I don't see that they will necessarily change the immigrant demographics.

audiculous on June 4, 2010 at 12:17 PM

I acknowledge that Europeans are pure hypocrites when it comes to immigration, but I don't see this article as stating what I thought you were saying earlier. It obviously points to an immigration problem that they are trying to address, but it only talks about deporting non citizen criminals and making new immigrants take a DNA test.

Whether there is a genuine problem or not, I simply don't see European nations outright banning certain immigrants or even substantially tightening restrictions on them in order to ban them without expressly doing so.

In that light, it is unsurprising that I (and others) have no desire to continue this debate, at least not with him.

Heralder on June 4, 2010 at 11:46 AM

I think it's obvious that none of us have actually been debating him. To do so, a little more back and forth would be required.

But the comments speak for themselves. They're still here, and anyone can look at them and make an independent judgment.

CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 6:29 PM

What threats?

I've told you before that I was never making it personal with you. I mentioned your condescension because it's annoying, and I was naively hoping you'd stop, not because I'm trying to take you down as a person. If anything, the very first time I pointed it out, I did so in an effort to help you in your discussions with Hot Air peons. My point then was that you'd do better if you quit assuming they're all stupid.

That's still the main point, and you're still free to completely ignore it. But in doing so, you're only hurting yourself, not me.

And that’s why I have continued to write at HotAir and other places, regardless of the resistance of commenters and fellow authors.

CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 7:48 PM

And why exactly is that? To fight against collectivism? If so, how do you imagine you do that by beating people over the head with your arguments while calling them stupid?

If you really want to change something or even have your arguments be heard, treat people with respect. Speaking softly and carrying big sticks works well here too, so long as your big stick is a logical argument that doesn't rely on calling people bigots.

nor do I agree with your characterization of my posts or my attitude

My goodness, CK. Why don't you just admit it? It really is far more insulting for you to pretend you can get away with this lie than it is for you to just admit you enjoy being condescending and won't stop because it does something for you that respectful dialogue simply can't.

Western nations tend to limit such things when they find the rates uncomfortable.

audiculous on June 4, 2010 at 1:38 AM

Since when? Or at least, since when has this been the case in the age where being seen as racist is a bad thing?

Right now, the total number of people signing is less than 50,000…..that’s about less than half of one per cent of the number of residents around here.

audiculous on June 3, 2010 at 1:44 PM

I didn't take that as indicative of NYC feelings either, but I've simply seen no reason to believe that even a plurality of New Yorkers support this. I'd love to see a more trusted poll on this but have yet to find one. If I do, I will certainly let you know.

audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 9:03 PM

I'm aware of the vote, but you're completely wrong that New Yorkers aren't expressing any outrage.

Maybe you haven't heard them. If that's the case, this might be help.

But I think you missed my point. I actually wasn't talking about New Yorkers. They certainly were victims in the attack, but I was writing more about those who specifically lost loved ones or who were injured. Many were and are still New Yorkers, but their views aren't necessarily reflected by New Yorkers as a whole.

Many of them, at that very meeting where they were overruled 29-1, made their concerns heard. It's in your second link, so presumably this isn't news to you.

The Mayor, the Police Commissioner, and the Manhattan Borough President are all in favor.

I find this to be an odd argument for presenting proof that New Yorkers are fine with the building, as though elected representatives are always barometers for public opinion. That's an illogical leap, especially in the current political climate where we went from one president under 30% approval and now to one hovering near the mid 40s, while Congress can't get much lower and neither can either party.

It's anti-incumbent fever around the nation, and you're pointing to these people as though their opinions are somehow meaningful representations of their society.

Maybe their views happen to align with the rest of the city, but that they think the building is acceptable in its location is not at all proof that anyone else does. I'm not even convinced you believe this.

There are no actual polls of just New Yorkers or just 9/11 victims or families of victims that I could find, but I did go through local New York news websites and didn't find a single one with a majority in support. At best, support seems to be around 30%. At worst, on a CBS poll no less, it gets less than 10%.



MadCon perceives an insult from the site of the mosque and no attempt to get MadCon to consider that a personal reaction of MadCon’s is not necessarily anything that’s correlative to the builders intent.

audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Why would it matter? In a global society we often put the onus on all sides for ensuring insults aren't felt, no matter intent. What's appropriate in one culture is a war-starting offense in another, so it's important that perceptions be considered, whether or not they're logical or baseless.

That's presumably why they sought approval from a board they never needed to consider. Even they seem to think perception matters and in doing so, while ignoring complaints from those with an invested interest in the area, they contradict themselves with what appears to be an even greater insult, that they would continue with plans to build the center after making it a point to listen to those who are hurt by it.

Though I obviously misunderstood your comment on insults and insensitivity.

see that word “or” there?

the sentence was meant to mean BIGOTRY OR misdirected blame.

OK, maybe it's meant to, but I did see that and disagree that it conveyed what you wanted. I mean the implication is that the only reason for the misdirected blame is their religion, which goes straight back to bigotry.

Or rather, that's the implication I took from what you wrote.

I'm still not sure what other reasons you're leaving open for the misdirected blame.

they may actually think that they know something of the thoughts of the people guiding the effort.

Isn't that CK's position? That he does know their thoughts and therefore dismisses any opposition as they people connected with the building have honorable intentions?

And you’re right to doubt whether I’m open to hearing other arguments.
Nothing in my comments suggests that I am, but I think that I am.

That's oddly refreshing.

I’ve no opinion of you as yet, Esthier, and I’ll take some care before forming one.

audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Alright. I'll accept this - at least for now.

But I will restate that if you want respectful dialogue, and it appears you do, it helps to assume that the people you are conversing with have honorable intentions and potentially sound arguments themselves until proven otherwise - or at least to pretend as though you assume this until you have proof of the opposite.

For me, I'm not saying the building shouldn't be allowed to be built. I don't even believe many are making that argument.

Freedom of religion and freedom of assembly are beautiful things that men and women have died to protect. If necessary, I'd do the same.

However, I, for one, find their stated intentions (about peace and harmony and all that) dubious considering the harm this proposed building has already caused to people very close to 9/11. If they didn't understand how it might hurt people, they certainly do now. I don't care whether or not the hurt these people feel is warranted. It's completely beside the point.

Another stated intention, proof that Muslims condemn the actions of those on 9/11, is equally dubious considering at least one of the main men associated with this building doesn't believe Muslims were involved and even then considers America at least marginally responsible.

These aren't reasons against the building. They're simply reasons to doubt that it's being built for the reasons they claim. Legally, I don't see that it would matter even if it was being built specifically as a middle finger to 9/11 victims and family members of victims.

Now I personally would also object to a giant middle finger at Ground Zero, but you've already listed insults and insensitivity as illegitimate reasons to be against it, so the intentions of the builders themselves are clearly not considered legitimate arguments by you anyway and are more of a prologue of my feelings on the subject.

My full reasons for considering this a horrible idea (one that should be prevented if possible though not by force) are somewhat all over the place.

I reject the idea that Americans have anything to prove about our tolerance towards Muslims or that allowing a mosque so close to Ground Zero proves Muslims tolerance. And in general, don't see any good reasons for putting it right there. You're welcome to point out any gems if you find them, though I will admit my own biases on the subject might preclude me from being persuaded by anything you find.

I believe that it already is a huge propaganda victory for the same people who saw 9/11 as a propaganda victory. I believe it will be used, not necessarily by those in New York, as a recruiting tool, one more effective than Abu photos or Gitmo.

This isn't necessarily the building's fault, but considering a website associated with the people behind this building issued a fatwa after a Muslim sold land to a Christian for a church to be built on, it's not as though the concept would have escaped their attention.

The most compelling argument I've found is the precedent for showing preference to those with an emotional connection to the land as the best show of unity, harmony, and all the things the people behind the buildings claim to care about.

In 1993, the Pope ordered nuns to leave the convent they'd made at Auschwitz. The nuns hadn't created the place out of disrespect, but again, that doesn't matter. It not only hurt Jewish people that they would do something seen as profane, but it had also strained relations between Jews (in Poland specifically but everywhere generally) and Roman Catholics.

From a practical standpoint, though the nuns meant no harm, their actions went against the very core of what their organization was trying to do and made an unnecessary political problem that was harmful to both groups.

This center, will have the same effect, and it will do so at a much less opportune time (not that I believe there is any appropriate time). We do need to be able to come together, Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc., and agree that violence is never the answer and that freedom is paramount to a just society in order to rebuke those who would use religion to commit murder and worse. I strongly believe that this is necessary for success against terrorism.

Using this area for a political purpose will only make that significantly harder. As one Muslims against the building put it, that place is about being an American first, period. It was a place for unification, every American alive then must remember what that was like, but this building has already caused so much division when deference to those who were injured or who lost loved ones could have gone a long way. Had they sought their permission first and received it, I'd have no objections to the building.

As it is, they are instead driving a wedge between Muslims and other Americans, and that alone will help those who want to dramatically change America. There free to do this of course, but why?

The explanation for why his comment was not an outright accusation of bigotry is: Purple

Heralder on June 2, 2010 at 3:48 PM

OK, that's funny. It reminds me of a T-shirt.

Haikus are easy
But sometimes they don't make sense.

I’m leaving open the possibility of ignorance, illogic, and stupidity, but I’ll gladly admit that I think bigotry is in the mix as well.

I'm not asking for your current position. I'm asking about that particular comment. It leaves no other explanation but bigotry against Muslims as a reason for being against the building.

People can also be stupid and illogical in this comment, but they're all ultimately and necessarily bigoted.

If you care to post some reasons for my consideration, I’ll consider and respond.

With all due respect, why would I want to when you've already dismissed my position in such harsh terms? You claim to respond in kind, but I haven't attacked you, and yet you leave no possibility for my potential argument being anything but bigoted, and maybe also stupid, ignorant and illogical.

You seem to be claiming here that you're open to hearing one, but your comments completely contradict that in no uncertain terms.

Fairly promptly. (again, sorry for the omission).

audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 3:49 PM

I don't take offense at it, though I do appreciate the apology.

I don't even take offense at your overall argument (because I know myself, not because I think your opinion of me is an acceptable position in any debate - on that I actually agree with CK, even though it's an obvious change of heart), but I simply don't understand why you would throw out such bombs while expecting people to respond to you with unearned civility.

This goes back to my first response to you. You're asking to be kindly excused, while calling those who disagree with you bigots. I'm not seeing the logic there.

they have every right to do so.

audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 3:41 PM

Most people, even those opposed to this building, agree on this point. That was never what most of the opposition was about.

audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Were you planning on responding to me? If you have an explanation for why I'm wrong about your comment, I'm open to hearing it.

As if, by implication, those of us that object to the mosques being build *do* somehow hate and fear Islam.

gryphon202 on June 2, 2010 at 1:40 PM

That's CK, not audiculous.


kindly show me the error of questioning the basis of the objection and/or explain why you think the accusation is of bigotry rather than unsound reasoning.

audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 1:37 PM

I don't understand how this, "for no other reason than you dislike the religion or want to blame people who’ve done nothing wrong," is anything but blaming bigotry from opposition to the mosque.

Maybe you could explain to me how it's not.

but kindly excuse those who say that you’re wrong and shortsighted and would sell us all short if you had your way and the mosque was blocked for no other reason than you dislike the religion or want to blame people who’ve done nothing wrong.

audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Yes, kindly excuse those who accuse you of bigotry.

Finally, re-assigning collective guilt in the other direction by calling conservatives bigots or Islamophobes cannot be justified either.

Then don't do it yourself and don't pretend you didn't start out doing precisely that.

I don’t see a good reason to be against the building of a mosque/cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero. In fact, the arguments in favor sound quite reasonable to me. But, then again, I don’t hate and fear Islam.

CK MacLeod on May 28, 2010 at 1:53 PM

You say no, and yet, that’s exactly what you’ve written, that the only reason to be against this is out of fear and hatred of Islam. Those were direct quotes.

I’m not saying there aren’t people who hate and fear Islam. There are. A ton of them. I engaged them on other threads but didn’t bother with them here as is my want.

What I’m saying is that there are other reasons to be against this, and that it’s complete lunacy of you to pretend otherwise simply to tar your entire opposition as a bunch of racists.

You miss the point and do so deliberately. Obviously it’s been my waste of time to pretend you could be fair or even own up to your own race card tactics.

Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 12:06 PM