I'll start with your response to the second point as it pertains to the thread...
Quote:
For the second point, there have been multiple examples of sound reasoning made by “slightly” more intelligent posters. The 2nd half of the 1st page of this thread is full of them, just go back and read them. I’d say the overall discussion in that area highlights both sides, and whatever your particular views are on this topic, that discussion illustrates both sides well. I don’t agree with all of Rugen’s points there for example, but they are well thought out and I understand where he is coming from. The part of this that actually got me posting again (even though I’ve already explained my position clearly much earlier) is people dismissing other people’s feelings in a casual “You’re just wrong” approach. Considering the events and the trauma many went through I wouldn’t say anyone’s feelings are wrong, regardless of what they were. That’s what makes them feelings, and those are what are involved in deciding if something is in good taste. Feelings dictate if it is in poor taste, logic dictates if it is lawful. Show some empathy.
I was there asking the same question on those pages, and never got a reasonable answer as to precisely what constitutes the correlation between Islam and the terrorists such that it is in poor taste. No examples were given, and after reading through it briefly again, the post you made suggesting motivation is a key component is one of the first actual "reasons" suggested that it's in poor taste or that there's a connection given in the entire thread(beyond the simplistic "cuz they were Muslims" with no connection given).
You can merely label it all feeling and subjective and simply walk away without giving an explanation, but if you actually want people to take you seriously then some sort of logical train of thought is required. As I said before with the example where the husband takes his wife to a dinner where her father died, there is a logical and concrete connection between the restaurant and the event that took place. While the feelings there are important, there is still a reasoned connection that makes sense.
Feelings and logic are not entirely mutually exclusive, as one can deduce a train of logical thought to understand why feelings exist. Some feelings are warranted, while others are not. I can deduce why people feel the way they do about this, but it is because they are not using reason when thinking about those feelings. If I lose a loved one, I am feeling that way for a myriad of different reasons. If I dislike a group of people because of gross inaccuracies, preconceived notions, and prejudice, then that is a feeling that lacks significant reasoning.
"Showing empathy", of course, is rather subjective. I believe it is empathetic towards the victims of 9/11 to move on and try to live in coexistence with other cultures and religions rather than attempt tell them that because a mere fraction of a percentage of people who "called" themselves Muslims decided to become violent and kill people we should tell them that they can't build a building in an attempt to show solidarity with the people of New York City and America.
Quote:
Quote shortened to the 2 points I want to address. The whole McDonald’s analogy has already been used and I believe the difference has been sufficiently explained. If the terrorists were killing people in the name of McDonalds and for the glory of the golden arches (eerie…) then it would be valid. Then I would also say I understand people being upset at a new McDonalds built at ground 0 and you would say of the 20 billion burgers served only 10,000 of them were eaten by terrorists, don’t punish the other 19,990,000 innocent burger loving patrons. Unfortunately for your example, Al Qaeda routinely uses Islam as its reasoning and not fast food eating habits.
The points I mentioned about Osama Bin Laden's(and by default Al Qaeda) alternate reasons should be pretty relevant here, as it was not merely one given reason by the perpetrators. I'd be interested in hearing your response on that.
Regardless, if you really believe that if a group of people did something along these lines in the name of McDonald's or anything else generic, then I'd like to hear your reasoning specifically on what makes that claim worthwhile enough to encompass the whole of the organization. At that point, I can basically say I'm with anyone or anything, and if I do something bad - *regardless* of whether I am legitimately a part of that organization, or if I even have some inkling of their values/beliefs/policies - then I have done something that actually reflects on them. That doesn't make much sense, and again I'd like to know the reasoning behind what specifically connects the two aside from my simplistic declaration that I'm a part of it.
Even with motivations in mind, I'd still like to know what specifically about motivations that drive people to do bad acts is bad taste if the generic motivation is touched upon elsewhere(in this case, a building representing it). Do people who have a distaste for animal cruelty have a tangible connection if some random guy who believes in the same thing decides to blow up a factory farm? Are all eco organizations to blame when an eco terrorist decides to act? Same motivation! Keep in mind that Islam is so large that it's to be expected that you'll have various groups and subgroups with countless different subsets of beliefs, similar to Christian denominations, so it's a bit of a stretch to label them as a singular group in the first place.
Perhaps more importantly and to the point - Generic motivation still doesn't give us a tangible connection between the terrorists and Islam because it only potentially tells us what their interpretation of Islam is, and no one else's. It also tells us nothing about whether that motivation - even assuming it's tangibly viable within the average Muslim community - is a motivation that would ever be used to endorse violent actions. Judging from the actions of the massive majority of Muslims worldwide who are peaceful, I'd say that's a negatory.
In short - We still have no tangible connection. Generic motivation is as loose a connection as anything else generic about any given small group of people. Whether they wear earrings, tatoos, or like to jump and rub their bellies on random occasions, we'd still need something non-generic that connects with the greater whole to use such a broad brush.