So... What is your stance of the proposed community center near ground zero?

[Phoenix Wright]

@Vala First cause the other one has a brain tumor.

More like a headache because I don't think you even know what or why you're even arguing.

@Nationalism/Patriotism/Pride vs Racism

"It's different" means nothing. Explain how it's different. In one case you're claiming superiority over all races, the other is contrasting with another and saying the former is better. I admit I think Patriotism is rather a silly concept. For one it's creating the barrier of "us" and "them" which is the central issue of discrimination. If they are you equals if all humans value this, why is there a need to highlight a certain trait as "American?" '

I did. I don't think having pride in your country of birth relates to racism at all.

I already explained that. It's a political issue between Americans and the Constitution, which you are failing to understand. Partly because you are failing to see the significance of the Constitution in an argument pertaining to the UNITED STATES.

@Wrong and lying

No, I think society see's it as wrong. I thought I already accepted I was racist? I'm not going to change my opinion for others, since I don't care about others. Why should I care about the hardships of a black man? I've got enough hardships of my own to deal with without sticking my nose into other peoples racial complication. I associate Americans with extremities, you're a good example. But I know alot of other Americans who are able to discern that there are more then two options.

Um, where exactly am I being extreme? lol

Should they be able to build it, or should they not be able to? that's the point of this topic, and frankly I don't think I should be seeing any gray areas, as you assume I should. You think they should be able to, but you also think they should not build it in that certain spot, and to that I'd argue you're missing the question.

Here's something to try: Arguing with clarity and specificity.

-Regarding the mosque you seem to indicate there's a "yes" or "no" answer. I've already said I'm not against it, yet you keep whining about preventing being an obstruction of rights.

I seem to indicate? Haha, that's the question, good sir.

Then why the fuck are you arguing with those that agree with you? Don't you find it odd that you're arguing with Esau, Revan, and I who all think they should build it there?

-Racism is always wrong because it can't be right. Frankly Patriotism is a type of racism, but apparently it's an "Okay" form of racism.

You can't prove that.

Do you even know what patriotism is? Or do you just base your opinion off of what you see on the media?

People like you need to see the grey area inbetween.

I think I've made it clear that there are no gray areas in a "yes, or no" question. Obviously, there may be opinions along with the answer, but the fact remains you're one or the other on this issue.

@Constitution

Of course, you keep thinking that. The constitution in my eyes is a scrap peice of paper with crap written on it. Wave it around all you like, it doesn't mean anything to me. It doesn't matter that I don't care? But neither does the paper? It doesn't even look like it could be used as toilet paper. Toilet Paper > Constitution?

Furthermore that's your constitution, Americas. It is not the core of every society in the world. Yes, isn't that shocking? The world doesn't revolve around the US. And there are other nations out there.

Yes, it's our Constitution. And guess what, we're arguing an issue taking place in the United States. It does not matter what anyone thinks of the Constitution, however, the Constitution (as well as the local government and state government) is included regardless because it is our law. When dealing with this type of situation, you usually look to the law, brah. I know, shocking ins't it?

@Take Away/Unconstitutional

Citation please? I have never said the "Should not be able" to build there. I have stated I believe that they should not build there, considering social prejudices and a lack in profit/gain. If you're going to yap about things think first, it usually help;) Though again, we're back to the extremities of a yes/no answer

"Should not," and "should not be able to," are pretty much synonymous in you're arguing style.

@My eyes, Acknowledge exist

I'll acknowledged someone died. If someone tells me their friend in Africa died, I'm not going to tell them they're lying. However I've never seen them, and therefore their death doesn't effect me at all. Why should it? I didn't even know they existed until I found out they were dead.

You specified NOTHING of the sort. Edited October 12, 2010 by Phoenix Wright

[lolDeath]

"I have the right to" isn't an automatic license to be allowed to do whatever you want.

Well, it kind of is, provided the legal right actually exists.

Racism aside that's a pretty shitty country. Glad I don't live in such a place.

You have no idea.

[Kanami]

@Nationalism/Patriotism/Pride vs Racism

Your country of birth refers to your race. (Exclusions being a kid born in America but with a Chinese background etc)

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics' date=' abilities, or qualities specific to that race , especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races[/quote']Since it seems like I need to repeat myself I will. If you're going to say "Americans are good because it respects freedom of speech" then indirectly you're saying that this is not the case in other parts of the world (true). Saying "America is a good country because they allow freedom of expression" is fine, it's praising an area not people. By using the term "Not American" the changes the shift to from the policy of a region to "characteristics, abilities or qualities specific to" Americans.

You seem to be unable to accept that there is positive racism. So you probably won't understand this since I'm not bashing it down as something which is unacceptable. But you are separating something from a wide pool(mankind) based on the "country of birth"

The belief that all Americans possess characteristics' date=' abilities, or qualities specific to that race , especially so as to distinguish it as superior to another race.[/quote']

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do you even know what patriotism is? Or do you just base your opinion off of what you see on the media?

Obviously I listen to the media, it's such a big issue and it's televised all over the world. I mean it's occurring in America, why wouldn't it be picked up by every media station in the world? The outrage here is heating up. I mean something like this? In America? We can't believe it. /sarcasm.

I think I've stated more then once I'm not from the US, and you've acknowldged it, so I don't even know why you're accusing me of basing my opinions on the media. This event is so minor that I'm surprised it even got past the local newspaper. I'm not sure how knowing what patriotism is, has anything to do with following the media. Are you confusing your own argument or is there supposed to be some link there?

@Political Issue

This is not solely a political issue, <_< and this is not a case in a court of law Mr Wright. There is more then a hint of morals and social attitudes involved. The thread is asking " So... What is your stance of the proposed community center near ground zero?" Your interpretation is "Should the community center be allowed, Yes or No"

United States is irrelevant to the argument. The issue is a man and his religion, social attitudes towards this religion being in a specific area, whether allowing it is insensitive or not, and whether it should be allowed or not. (I'm sure there are others that can be raised) But I see the main question as being the moral issues involved with the construction of the site. Notice how Esau and ValaRevan were talking about "Insensitive?" while you're still harping about rights and the constitution?

You only place value on the last question, which does concern pertain to politics and the legal technicalities (which don't prevent it from being built).

@Extreme

Your interpretation of this topic is very narrow, and more can be discussed then a simple yes or no. If you don't have the intelligence to see the other potential areas which can be discussed I suggest reading Esau's post. So I'm not missing the question, you just aren't seeing the entire picture.

How nice it must be being a simpleton who can only agree or disagree with something. I've said I think it should be allowed from the very start. "But" I'm also going to go into it a bit further. It might be closed minded to say no.(which I'm not) But it's close minded of you to think that there isn't points for both sides of the argument.

As for clarity and specificity? How about offering some of that yourself? Oh right, you can only nod or shake your head.

@Arguing with those that agree

Oh dear, three people disagree with me, obviously I have to be completely wrong if a whole three people disagree. Esau and myself are discussing the topic from my perspective, not arguing. The only part were arguing is whether I should feel saddened by the deaths of those I never knew. As for Revan and myself we had a small misunderstanding and while we don't agree we're still "discussing" in the serious discussion board. You.... well I'm just repeating the same damn thing to you since you raise no points other then it being a right, and the world revolving around the US.

@Constitution

Again, I'm not talking about law, I've cleared the law hurdle by stating several times that they "can" build the mosque. It's the other details I'm discussing and you're just being a hindrance now and overly reactive to an already agreed "section" of the topic.

@Synonymous

Read the words, not the style?

@Nothing of the sort

Your comment makes no sense in connection with that quote. How about explaining what "sort" is?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

@Death

Example: "I have the right to expressing myself and will say whatever the hell I want"

I see what you mean..... going to restate that I'm Duty>Rights.

As for having no idea. It seems I don't. And I'm glad I don't.

Reading PW's comments makes me understand why the US is so willing to intervene in foreign wars.

"We have the power to, so we'll join in and make it worse"

Where I live, there's a joke that Americans take everything to court. (In a similar sense to Chinese having small eyes) I thought it was a joke but looking at the pool of people brandishing the constitution and rights around. And how brandishing ones "Rights" is as important as food and oxygen.... I'm not so sure now.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Kanami

[Chalis]

You don't declare having a "right" and people walk all over you?

No shit, that's the whole reason this discussion was even for.

The people protesting against the community center actually think they can do anything to stop it from being built. They're like the protesters in front of legal abortion clinics. It is a community center with a mosque being built on private property by private citizens. There is no issue because they have every right to build what they want on that property (EDIT) Oh, and because that right is covered by the constitution. You know that 'silly toiler paper' you referred to as.

You act like you can trample that right by saying something so simple as saying "it's insensitive to some people". Thank god it doesn't work that way.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Chalis

[Defeatist Elitist]

"the only person on this forum I really hate is Esau. It's like arguing with a partially deaf woman who's permanently on PMS."

Let me guess who told you this.

Phoenix?

Phoenix is pretty much the stupidest member to ever set foot in this section other than Jarly. Like, he is so goddamn retarded that for a while he was banned from posting in this section, because he is almost incapable of admitting defeat, and almost incapable of forming logically sound arguments. Phoenix is legendary around here for his idiocy, and I suspect that if you have ever spoken to him in a capacity beyond genial conversation you will at least partially understand this.

Arguing with Pheonix is like arguing with a brick wall that periodically shits a plethora of waste all over the goddamn place. A lot of people refuse to even argue with him it's so terrible. You might also notice that this post has quite a bit more swearing and much harsher language than most of my other posts, this being largel because it involves Phoenix.

Yes, he is that bad. He is so bad I am willing to spend an entire post explaining how bad he is.

Edited October 12, 2010 by ZXValaRevan

[Phoenix Wright]

Obviously I listen to the media, it's such a big issue and it's televised all over the world. I mean it's occurring in America, why wouldn't it be picked up by every media station in the world? The outrage here is heating up. I mean something like this? In America? We can't believe it. /sarcasm.

Media can be any source of information, brah. You're the simpleton who gives it a negative connotation and making it refer to only listening to propaganda. I would love you to point out where exactly I'm supporting US superiority, by the way. It's getting annoying. Especially since you're right, all I have done is point out US law. I'm not sure how that relates to supremacy.

I think I've stated more then once I'm not from the US, and you've acknowldged it, so I don't even know why you're accusing me of basing my opinions on the media. This event is so minor that I'm surprised it even got past the local newspaper. I'm not sure how knowing what patriotism is, has anything to do with following the media. Are you confusing your own argument or is there supposed to be some link there?

Because your definition of patriotism in the US is so grotesquely wrong I feel that you really only receive your information from the media. Just like an uneducated American's views towards Muslims is disgustingly wrong because they only listen to the TV talk (I actually have faith that you read news from somewhere).

@Political Issue

This is not solely a political issue, <_< and this is not a case in a court of law Mr Wright. There is more then a hint of morals and social attitudes involved. The thread is asking " So... What is your stance of the proposed community center near ground zero?" Your interpretation is "Should the community center be allowed, Yes or No"

"Obviously, there may be opinions along with the answer, but the fact remains you're one or the other on this issue." I'm clearly quoting this for a reason. My interpretation is not incorrect. If I said, "What is your stance on an abortion clinic being built two blocks from my house," it's a yes or no question. It's fucking obvious that people will have separate opinions on why they agree or disagree, however the fact remains that it is indeed a "yes or no" type question.

United States is irrelevant to the argument.

Right...

The issue is a man and his religion, social attitudes towards this religion being in a specific area, whether allowing it is insensitive or not, and whether it should be allowed or not. (I'm sure there are others that can be raised) But I see the main question as being the moral issues involved with the construction of the site. Notice how Esau and ValaRevan were talking about "Insensitive?" while you're still harping about rights and the constitution?

No, the issue is "In the United States, should one have the right to build a community center, with a mosque in it, two blocks away from a terrorist attack zone, which also just happens to be by Muslims?"

It's a building in our fucking country and nothing else. This is a non-issue, as others have pointed out in this thread (and if I recall, among them who stated this was Esau himself). It has nothing to do with the social acceptance of Muslims.

You only place value on the last question, which does concern pertain to politics and the legal technicalities (which don't prevent it from being built).

Uh...what last question? The OP only asked one.

@Extreme

Your interpretation of this topic is very narrow, and more can be discussed then a simple yes or no. If you don't have the intelligence to see the other potential areas which can be discussed I suggest reading Esau's post. So I'm not missing the question, you just aren't seeing the entire picture.

And I'm not disagreeing with that, as I have pointed out several times before. The question allows for more discussion, however the question IS "Do they have the right to build there? Why or why not? Elaborate."

How nice it must be being a simpleton who can only agree or disagree with something. I've said I think it should be allowed from the very start. "But" I'm also going to go into it a bit further. It might be closed minded to say no.(which I'm not) But it's close minded of you to think that there isn't points for both sides of the argument.

I'm not even sure where you're going with this babble. The opposing side, those who say it can't be built, are wrong Constitutionally. If one wants to argue beyond that fact, then do so, however it is pointless.

Your stance: "Yes they can, however it is insensitive, and therefore they should move it to a different location." Uh, OK cool. However, you're still saying it shouldn't be built near or on ground zero, which I guess would technically mean you don't agree with the people I named.

As for clarity and specificity? How about offering some of that yourself? Oh right, you can only nod or shake your head.

Now this is just plain silly. Even if you were right in your pompously assumed judgment of me, a simple "yes" or "no" is the ultimate form of clarity. Specificity not so much, but you're wrong about me anyway so it's irrelevant.

@Arguing with those that agree

Oh dear, three people disagree with me, obviously I have to be completely wrong if a whole three people disagree.

Your attempt at sarcasm makes no sense here. My point was that it's silly that you're arguing with people you say you are agreeing with.

Esau and myself are discussing the topic from my perspective, not arguing. The only part were arguing is whether I should feel saddened by the deaths of those I never knew.

I vaguely remember having the same argument. But oh wait, I'm too much of a simpleton, and caring for others' lives requires more than a yes or no, so I suppose this part of the discussion was out of my intellectual league.

Not.

You.... well I'm just repeating the same damn thing to you since you raise no points other then it being a right, and the world revolving around the US.

You're an idiot if you honestly think arguing domestic law about a domestic issue (ie, an issue only pertaining to the US, or the home country) is arguing that the world revolves around said country. A complete jackass, in fact. You aren't repeating anything except bullshit by the way. If it were otherwise, according to you I would be easily swayed to your stance, since I can only agree or disagree, and if disagreeing doesn't work I change my opinion.

@Constitution

Again, I'm not talking about law, I've cleared the law hurdle by stating several times that they "can" build the mosque. It's the other details I'm discussing and you're just being a hindrance now and overly reactive to an already agreed "section" of the topic.

Hm, OK then. Let's argue the insensitivity, or lack thereof, of this matter. It's a building two blocks away from terrorist-destroyed buildings. It just happens to contain a mosque. The only way one can be offended by this is if they have problems with Muslims. Anyone who is sane would be able to realize that not all Muslims are bad, and therefore the community center isn't particularly wrong or insensitive. It's just another mosque, of many in the United States, in New York. Whether it is near an extremist Muslim attack zone is irrelevant. The only thing an American can be angry at is the stupid, extremist, suicide-bombing, nominal Muslims involved in the terrorist attack.

What else would you like to argue?

@Synonymous

Read the words, not the style?

I disagree. Among other things, an author's style gives the reader a context, a mood, and a familiar tone that the author will be using (if one can be familiar with your style in particular, I find the chances to be slim). Words are defined by what the author decides them to be. Jell-o could mean Jesus in a play of mine, does that make me incorrect in my use of language? Perhaps, perhaps not. It depends on the reader. Maybe Jesus is like Jell-o to the author, and therefore it is justified. There is clearly room for debate. However, my point stands unless you are able to knock it down, style does matter in an argument.

@Nothing of the sort

Your comment makes no sense in connection with that quote. How about explaining what "sort" is?

Hm, that's incredibly narrow-minded of you. Just because you don't know what I mean by "sort" you automatically assume my statement has no connection with what I quoted. Nice woman. You're learning from the master of simplicity and narrowness (moi) rather fast!

Not.

Hm, apparently "nothing of the sort" is an American saying. What I mean by that is you did not specify previously what you specified in that particular statement. You were too vague before.

Really? America's that bad? You fail to exercise your right and it's gone forever?

You don't declare having a "right" and people walk all over you?

It's funny how you think a system different from yours is "bad." No system of government is "bad."

Yeah, but it's hard to not exercise your rights. Rights are given to you by birth because of our constitution, so in principle, our rights are protected by ourselves (the people) and the government. The issue of gay marriage is a prime example of people fighting for rights they deserve in their separate states.

Reading PW's comments makes me understand why the US is so willing to intervene in foreign wars.

"We have the power to, so we'll join in and make it worse"

You are a silly, silly person and I blame the language barrier. I BEG OF YOU TO TELL ME where I said ANYTHING relating to that in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.

Here's what I have said, and that you have trouble comprehending: "Americans have a right to build in the United States if the property is privately owned." Where you have got you hideously stupid comment from I will never know.

I actually think you're trolling now that I think about it more and more.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Phoenix Wright

[Esau of Isaac]

Again, my fault I started talking to you with a negative impression and read your post with that sentiment. Due to reading this:

"the only person on this forum I really hate is Esau. It's like arguing with a partially deaf woman who's permanently on PMS."

Though at present I'm having second thoughts since I don't see the PMS kicking in XD

Oh don't worry, that's just Phoenix. He has a history of...divisive behavior?

As for insensitive, I don't see why it needs to defined as a "yes/no" situation. And think it being sensitive or not is irrelevant to whether something should be allowed. In this case, opinion is too split to discern for certain whether the landowners actions are insensitive or not. As I said earlier, I think it'd be easy to foresee that the topic would attract attention of the negative kind. If he was able to foresee that and went ahead without good reason, then I'd say he's insensitive (screw rights for the moment okay? Not directed at you Esau). If he did foresee the complication, weighed them with whatever his goals are, then no, he's not insensitive. If he didn't consider the problems at all, he lives in lala land.

Okay, I can agree with that. I just think that if he is being insensitive to anyone, it's only to those who are offended by him building it really anywhere, not just near the WTC.

I've interpreted your comment regarding why shouldn't he stand for his beliefs as a comment which enforces that he has the right to it and should stand for what he is entitled to, if that's not what you meant, misinterpretation. There is nothing specifically wrong with concerning yourself with freedom, it's when it's cited as a solution. "I have the right to" isn't an automatic license to be allowed to do whatever you want. I've got a drivers license, doesn't mean I can ignore the road rules. While the contrast is a bit different. "He has the right to" doesn't equal "He should stand for his rights."

I'm not saying that because he has the right, he necessarily should exercise it. I am more saying that it is not bad that he is fighting back rather than accepting blind hate.

I however disagree that an individuals steadfastness is a thing to admired. If I believe all Christians should be crucified and I stand by my belief that most likely isn't something which people should look up to, despite the amount of opposition (adversity) I'd receive for such a statement. In this certain case, there's no reason to admire him either. I don't know the "odds" but standing up to something isn't worth appreciating at all. It's the idea, or object that the individual is making a stand for. And as stated prior, we don't know what's going on inside the landowners head.

I wouldn't say that you could respect the person's position, but I would find something to be admired in such a person pushing their beliefs forth with such strength. In that case it would be valuing the person's strength of will, and not their position.

I don't see what makes a "person" so important. A bird is a thinking, feeling creature that is just as alive as any person. So are the flies I've sprayed to death, and that rat I trapped years ago with a mouse trap. I'm the cold blooded murderer of all these creatures but do I feel remorse? Not really. But I feel more for the rat then the unknown person on tv. Since I'm faced with the deceased.

A bird is a thinking, feeling creature, but a person is far more complex. I'm talking with you right now, transmitting my feelings to you through words and statements. I can teach you, and you can teach me, and through co-operation either or both of us can learn and improve ourselves to a great degree. The bird can't do that. The flies you sprayed to death can't do that. The mouse you killed cannot do that.

Why shouldn't I feel sadness? Why should I? They lost their ability to exist isn't all that important is it? They wouldn't have existed at all had it not been for two people getting together. I don't remember celebrating their existence, why would I mourn the loss? Hearing about someone loss or some sort of loss is secondary information.

Because they were people that thought and felt. It's very important, because those people may have had family and friends that loved them very dearly. If they didn't, then it's doubly sad. The person died alone, without a friend or companion to comfort them and be with them.

I could be told by my neighbor that they had the best Christmas last year, they could tell me all the "great details" and how "fun" it was for them. But do I get happy and excited hearing about it? Even moreso if it's just some random lady who sat next to me on the bus? My dad talks about how he had it rough as a kid, (walk to school uphill to and from school each day six days a week). Does that make it rough for me to live? Do I need to think, "God, I'm so lucky someone developed a bus route through this street" each day I go to school? There's no reason to share the grief, excitement or hardships just because someone, somewhere who has no relevance to oneself experienced something.

Yes, you can get happy and excited when such a person explains their Christmas, whether it's your neighbor or someone you don't even know. You can be thankful that you don't have to work your body as hard just to get around.

There is always reason to share grief, excitement, and hardships with others. We're social creatures, we sustain ourselves off of interaction with other people. Sharing our happiness, our sadness, and even our irritations, is part of who we are.

It should be obvious that I'm not saint, and I can't be feeling and thinking things for everything that I hear about in life. If it's neccessary I'll do the usual courtship "Oh that horrible, are you okay" routine, but personally I don't feel sympathetic at all. Simply because there's no reason to feel a "loss" when it wasn't a "loss" to the individual (me). That changes when it's a friend. Since it's indirectly affecting me, I can feel sympathetic then.

When does it stop making you feel bad? If your friend dies? If your friend's father dies? If your friend's father's friend dies? We're all connected. If you die, you're in some way connected to me. You shouldn't view everyone outside of your circle of known friends and family as one unit. Any one of those people you don't care about that died in that blaze could have later become friends and family of yours. They could have become friends and family of those you love now.

We are all people. We are all affected by loss. If you were to say that someone you loved had just died, I would genuinely feel bad for you. I wouldn't feel the way I would if those I loved had died, but I would honestly feel some measure of sadness that you had to face the death of someone that is important to you.

Why can I think of the relatives and not the deceased? Because the deceased doesn't exist anymore, if they turned to dirt good for them, they don't need help doing that.

Why, then, would you mourn if your loved ones died?

[Kanami]

@ZXValaRevan: Yeah, I'm understanding that now, I've Roleplayed here on Serenes with him before and while I liked his activity, can't say I applauded his logic. I've spoken to him beyond genial conversation and unfortunately understand what you mean more then just partially. XD

@PW

Though it's my nature to respond to comments so I'll briefly touch on a few things.

-Irrelevant whether it be tv, articles, newspapers, social chat groups, forums etcetc. The fact is, it's not that big a deal. Don't see why I'd have to listen to such a minor case which only affects a minority (according to you) Minority being America and Muslims.

-I'm tired of listening to you telling me I'm wrong and not providing an alternate view to work with.

-Abortion clinic being a yes/no is false. The most obvious issue there is whether I support abortion or not.

-If it's a yes/no question, leave me alone. I agree that the man should be able to build there. And stated that in my first post. You're the one arguing with me. Using your words.

Then why the fuck are you arguing with those that agree with you?

-The question is "stance" Not pick a side of the fence. "stance" implies more of a "1~10 where do you fit in?"

-I'm talking about the community around it, not specifically just the landowner, again, there can probably only be one person who is affected in your mind. The landowner and whether he builds or doesn't.

-Style: You're not reading my style correctly then, therefore it's your own problem. Style matters, but not when you're misinterpreting.

What I mean by that is you did not specify previously what you specified in that particular statement. You were too vague before.

Reading that, by itself does that make any sense? No. It tell me I'm vague (About what?) and that there was a statement (which?) and that it occured before (when?).

-Put simply, I'm not going to argue with you about Rights. Death's convinced me that America (or at least a portion of it's inhabitants are that "sad" and I pity them.

Overall, talking you with hasn't yielded anything productive, all I've heard from you is "your wrong" "America!!!" and "I have Rights!!!" And until you come up with something more decent or useful, I don't see any reason to continue this argument with you. Yes, I'm running away because you're right and I'm wrong. Leave it at that. And leave me alone <_<

@Esau

Well, my apologize for making that judgement regardless. (No idea why I trusted Phoenix's analysis this time round).

You're right, he's only offending those who have a problem building it. And chances are the people upset about it just don't want muslims anywhere. I work part time in the retail industry and when a woman wearing a burka comes in, I take notice. Not because I think she's hiding a bomb underneath, but I would still prefer seeing her face. It's not an offense to hide ones face, and she has her culture/religion. But that's my preference, and I'm sure everyone can agree that I'm "allowed" to want to see the face of the person I'm talking to. Though that's not to say "ban the burka." It's just my preference, which is what I think this entire thing was based on, it just escalated due to people taking extremes to argue their preferences.

I agree that him making a stand is not a bad thing. I also don't think it's a good thing either. But the world isn't split into good and bad. Though I don't see a need to fight back against every "blind hate" directed towards an individual, though I suppose in this specific case he has something to lose (sort of?) So making a stand is important.

As for having a strong will, I can't say I admire it since I don't think of a "strong will" as a good thing, but more that a strong will is default, and anything below (weak will) is below average. And extremities in any sense are never good. "I have the right to do this, and don't give a shit what anyone says, so you all shut up" is by no means a good attitude to have regardless of how correct you may be.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I definetely can't agree with you in the "complex creature" argument. Using non-creature and my personal situation, A Ipod is alot more complex then a pendant I own. However I'd be much more upset losing the pendant then the Ipod. So firstly complex=important is false.

Secondly "social, communicative potential" isn't all that important in my eyes. The first thing that came to mind is a dead person doesn't have social, communicative potential. They're dead. Feeling upset that I never got the chance to communicate with the deceased, I most likely wouldn't have even had I gotten a chance to.

Thinking and feeling is something all living creatures do, it's not exclusive to humans. Though humans do think at higher levels that's like saying a bussiness mans death is more tragic then a five year olds because the business man had a higher intellect. I admit instinct kicks in for animals, but I find it hard to believe they are not sentient beings. As for feelings? I'm sure if I kick a cat it will pain, if I do it repeatedly it may feel resentment or fear. So they're feeling creatures too.

Yes, you can get happy and excited when such a person explains their Christmas, whether it's your neighbor or someone you don't even know. You can be thankful that you don't have to work your body as hard just to get around.

~

There is always reason to share grief, excitement, and hardships with others. We're social creatures, we sustain ourselves off of interaction with other people. Sharing our happiness, our sadness, and even our irritations, is part of who we are.

I agree, I can but generally, I won't. I admit humans are social beings which rely heavily on emotion. However that's not to say the more emotions you feel, the better. The neighbor sharing their christmas history might be fun for them, but I could have other things I want to do. And them telling me about it might only be a source of irritation. Like how "Sensitivity" differs between people, so does our reaction to certain things. And "sharing" doesn't always lead to positive results. I can sustain myself perfectly fine without knowing that my neighbor had a nice christmas. Again, being able to (excercise rights) share emotions, doesn't automaticaly lead to having to share emotions. Furthermore, I'd prefer to share grief/excistement and hardships with the people who are close to me. Usually family and friends.

When does it stop making you feel bad? If your friend dies? If your friend's father dies? If your friend's father's friend dies? We're all connected. If you die, you're in some way connected to me. You shouldn't view everyone outside of your circle of known friends and family as one unit. Any one of those people you don't care about that died in that blaze could have later become friends and family of yours. They could have become friends and family of those you love now.

We are all people. We are all affected by loss. If you were to say that someone you loved had just died, I would genuinely feel bad for you. I wouldn't feel the way I would if those I loved had died, but I would honestly feel some measure of sadness that you had to face the death of someone that is important to you.

It stops (for me) when it doesn't have a proper connection to me.

-If a friend dies, I have lost a friend, they were a good person it is a loss.

-If a friends father dies, the friend like the father, they feel a loss. I share their sentiments as I didn't want my friend to go through such pain.

-If a friends fathers friend dies, it depends on how much I care about the father. If I knew the father I'd feel sorry for his loss. If I didn't and the friend is upset, then I'd feel sorry for the father through the friend.

-If a friends, friends, friends father dies. I probably wouldn't feel anything at all, he's no longer connected to me. Same sort of logic as distant relatives you've never met. Essentially a cousins, cousins cousin (though related to you if you travel up the family tree) isn't any different from a complete stranger.

-Cousin died: *Cries* :(

-Cousins cousin died: ouch

-Cousins cousins cousin died: Poor guy,

-Cousins cousins cousins cousin died:..... Who?

As for seeing other outside my connections as one unit. I know they're different people, but they all come under the category of people I have not met, or people I haven't interacted with. And when looking at levels of care, Your neighbor has an importance of 0 to me. As does Yangchen and Chrono who I have never met talked to or interacted with. (The members on SF with a birthday today). In that sense, they are one unit as they are all labeled with "Unknown"

In regards to them becoming potential family/friends. that's a rather weak argument. "If's" are near infinite, and I don't have the mental capacity to think and evaluate each one. And if they hadn't done so before dying, the "if" isn't even a possible option.

@Levels of loss

First though, what if I say the family cat had died? It's not human, but the loss is still there isn't it? (I don't have a cat) And personally I'd value the family cat more then the life of your neighbor since I'd have developed some sort of relation/bond to it.

Going back to your point though, You value your direct loved ones above mine right? What if my neighbors loved one died? Would that be equal to someone I love dying? (You might not realize the difference since we don't know each other, but I would assume that having talked to you, me losing a loved one would hold greater weight, even if the difference is minute) What about if it was a neighbors friends neighbor? It gradually decrease until I don't feel anything anymore. I think the difference is that you place say 5% of value to the death of an unknown, whereas I place 0%.

You've said it yourself, you'd feel "some measure of sadness that you(me) had to face the death of someone." Your sympathy lies with me then the deceased victim. So you're sympathizing with the non-deceased victims (family and friends of the deceased) before the deceased himself.

Why, then, would you mourn if your loved ones died?

I'd like to abstain fully answering that question since it leads to another argument altogether. What I am willing to answer is that I'm a selfish person and it would be mainly about "me." I would no longer have the chance to react with that person again, which is a loss for "me" I genuinely cared and wished them everlasting happiness which is no longer possible. Are probably the main ones.

Important to clarify here that I do NOT think death is a happy event. Regardless of whether the turned to dirt, went to heaven or reincarnated.

My posts just keep getting longer and longer T_T

Edited October 13, 2010 by Kanami

[Esau of Isaac]

@Esau

Well, my apologize for making that judgement regardless. (No idea why I trusted Phoenix's analysis this time round).

You're right, he's only offending those who have a problem building it. And chances are the people upset about it just don't want muslims anywhere. I work part time in the retail industry and when a woman wearing a burka comes in, I take notice. Not because I think she's hiding a bomb underneath, but I would still prefer seeing her face. It's not an offense to hide ones face, and she has her culture/religion. But that's my preference, and I'm sure everyone can agree that I'm "allowed" to want to see the face of the person I'm talking to. Though that's not to say "ban the burka." It's just my preference, which is what I think this entire thing was based on, it just escalated due to people taking extremes to argue their preferences.

I agree that him making a stand is not a bad thing. I also don't think it's a good thing either. But the world isn't split into good and bad. Though I don't see a need to fight back against every "blind hate" directed towards an individual, though I suppose in this specific case he has something to lose (sort of?) So making a stand is important.

I wouldn't say it's always prudent to stand against blind hate. I do think that at times, someone should do so, however.

I definetely can't agree with you in the "complex creature" argument. Using non-creature and my personal situation, A Ipod is alot more complex then a pendant I own. However I'd be much more upset losing the pendant then the Ipod. So firstly complex=important is false.

I meant complex in regard to higher communication capabilities.

Secondly "social, communicative potential" isn't all that important in my eyes. The first thing that came to mind is a dead person doesn't have social, communicative potential. They're dead. Feeling upset that I never got the chance to communicate with the deceased, I most likely wouldn't have even had I gotten a chance to.

How do you know? Today's age of communication is very powerful. You may already have communicated with an individual that lives near Ground Zero now.

Thinking and feeling is something all living creatures do, it's not exclusive to humans.

But you would agree that an ant, for example, does not think and feel as you do?

Though humans do think at higher levels that's like saying a bussiness mans death is more tragic then a five year olds because the business man had a higher intellect.

The five-year-old is capable of growing and learning, and thus it is more tragic to me when a child dies before it ever becomes what it could have.

I admit instinct kicks in for animals, but I find it hard to believe they are not sentient beings.

Why would you say that all animals are decidedly sentient? Or for that matter, sapient?

As for feelings? I'm sure if I kick a cat it will pain, if I do it repeatedly it may feel resentment or fear. So they're feeling creatures too.

Is your cat the same as a random echinoderm? How about a snail? Do all three have the same ability to interpret their instinctual feelings and express it through identifiable emotions and behaviors?

I agree, I can but generally, I won't. I admit humans are social beings which rely heavily on emotion. However that's not to say the more emotions you feel, the better. The neighbor sharing their christmas history might be fun for them, but I could have other things I want to do. And them telling me about it might only be a source of irritation. Like how "Sensitivity" differs between people, so does our reaction to certain things. And "sharing" doesn't always lead to positive results. I can sustain myself perfectly fine without knowing that my neighbor had a nice christmas. Again, being able to (excercise rights) share emotions, doesn't automaticaly lead to having to share emotions. Furthermore, I'd prefer to share grief/excistement and hardships with the people who are close to me. Usually family and friends.

No, you're making a mistake in stating that when one shares their emotions, you have the option to not share your own. Communication isn't controllable like that. There isn't a way by which to not react to something that someone communicates to you. You may mask your irritation, but the person that is transmitting their feelings to you will receive their own message from you, whether you purposely encoded a direct message or not.

It might be a source of irritation at some points, but communication is ultimately a form of subsistence for humans. Sure, it may irritate you now, but if you'd lacked human contact for months, it would probably be like a legendary fable told by Gandalf the Grey. Or something. The point is, it's easy to say that communication is a pain in the same sense it can be easy for someone that just got done chowing down at a Thanksgiving festival to say that food is unnecessary.

In regards to them becoming potential family/friends. that's a rather weak argument. "If's" are near infinite, and I don't have the mental capacity to think and evaluate each one. And if they hadn't done so before dying, the "if" isn't even a possible option.

The point of the argument is not one of probability, but one of overall impact the individuals can have on yourself, which you care for most. Keep in mind that the World Trade Center was a particularly important area in which tens of thousands of people could regularly interact, in an area known for cultural diversity. Granted, "only" a few thousand died, but the possibility of none of them having affected you is roughly zero.

Though I guess we're talking about direct communication, so I can't really say what the probability was of you ever meeting any of them. But stranger things have happened.

@Levels of loss

First though, what if I say the family cat had died? It's not human, but the loss is still there isn't it? (I don't have a cat) And personally I'd value the family cat more then the life of your neighbor since I'd have developed some sort of relation/bond to it.

I would feel bad if your family cat died, since you cared for the cat since you're going far enough to let me know your feelings.

Going back to your point though, You value your direct loved ones above mine right? What if my neighbors loved one died? Would that be equal to someone I love dying? (You might not realize the difference since we don't know each other, but I would assume that having talked to you, me losing a loved one would hold greater weight, even if the difference is minute) What about if it was a neighbors friends neighbor? It gradually decrease until I don't feel anything anymore. I think the difference is that you place say 5% of value to the death of an unknown, whereas I place 0%.

I would judge news you give to me based on importance of the one that you lost. If your father died but you disliked them, I would feel some measure of sadness both because you lost a father and you lacking a good relationship with your father, but if you lost a neighbor that you knew as close as a brother, I would feel much sadness.

You've said it yourself, you'd feel "some measure of sadness that you(me) had to face the death of someone." Your sympathy lies with me then the deceased victim. So you're sympathizing with the non-deceased victims (family and friends of the deceased) before the deceased himself.

I feel sadness for the family first, but I still feel sadness for those whose lives were lost.

I'd like to abstain fully answering that question since it leads to another argument altogether. What I am willing to answer is that I'm a selfish person and it would be mainly about "me." I would no longer have the chance to react with that person again, which is a loss for "me" I genuinely cared and wished them everlasting happiness which is no longer possible. Are probably the main ones.

Important to clarify here that I do NOT think death is a happy event. Regardless of whether the turned to dirt, went to heaven or reincarnated.

So if I could reliably prove that a number of the individuals that died in such an attack could have likely become friends of yours, would you then feel sadness?

You've said it yourself, you'd feel "some measure of sadness that you(me) had to face the death of someone." Your sympathy lies with me then the deceased victim. So you're sympathizing with the non-deceased victims (family and friends of the deceased) before the deceased himself.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[Phoenix Wright]

@PW

-Irrelevant whether it be tv, articles, newspapers, social chat groups, forums etcetc. The fact is, it's not that big a deal. Don't see why I'd have to listen to such a minor case which only affects a minority (according to you) Minority being America and Muslims.

Yes, it affects only us Americans and Muslims. It shouldn't affect anyone else. The attack itself affects more people, suicide bombing affects nearly everyone, however a building in New York does not, and probably never will.

-I'm tired of listening to you telling me I'm wrong and not providing an alternate view to work with.

We aren't even "arguing," so how could I tell you you're wrong? You have no points in any of your posts.

-Abortion clinic being a yes/no is false. The most obvious issue there is whether I support abortion or not.

Not necessarily. That detail would only matter to ideologues. The question being asked is if you support it or not, and why or why not.

-If it's a yes/no question, leave me alone. I agree that the man should be able to build there. And stated that in my first post. You're the one arguing with me.

Our "argument" was to what extent should this issue go, though. You opinion so far has been "I agree but there's more to it than that, so stop telling me about US law." I'm arguing that that isn't the case. So far you haven't refuted that, you've only replied to me by saying you think I'm saying the world revolves around the US. In reality I'm almost arguing as a loose isolationist, which is obviously the complete opposite.

-The question is "stance" Not pick a side of the fence. "stance" implies more of a "1~10 where do you fit in?"

Not quite. It's more like "Yes or no, then why or why not." A "yes" would clarify ~6-10, and a "no" would range from ~1-5.

-I'm talking about the community around it, not specifically just the landowner, again, there can probably only be one person who is affected in your mind. The landowner and whether he builds or doesn't.

But see, the community around it would include those near the building of business, not to those opposed to the building because they're intolerant Americans who view every Muslim as a terrorist. The reasons why one would be opposed to this is for illogical, unfair beliefs. Just as I've said before in this topic, I'd be against a mosque on ground zero, however I would never deny the right to build. That's my illogical, unfair belief.

-Style: You're not reading my style correctly then, therefore it's your own problem. Style matters, but not when you're misinterpreting.

Just what is your "style" then, hm?

Reading that, by itself does that make any sense? No. It tell me I'm vague (About what?) and that there was a statement (which?) and that it occured before (when?).

Well, if you would refer to the quote in which I said that, all questions will be answered. You can continue to act like a dunce if you want to, though. I don't really mind.

-Put simply, I'm not going to argue with you about Rights. Death's convinced me that America (or at least a portion of it's inhabitants are that "sad" and I pity them.

All he said was "You don't even know." If that kind of ambiguous post convinces you of your uneducated opinion, then I have no other choice but to feel kind of sorry for you.

And how about you stop reading it as a "Right." It's a right given to us by law, it is our right by law, not a right because we're American. We don't have that "right by law" in any other country, and only an idiot would think otherwise.

Overall, talking you with hasn't yielded anything productive,

Speak for yourself. I'd argue it's productive in the sense that I now know just the kind of person you are, and what kind of opinions you have. You seem to assume that just because I have the words "rights," "American," and "patriot" spread apart in my posts that I'm a rabble-rousing moron advocating the "supremacy" of America towards all other countries. That couldn't be farther from the truth, by the way.

[A]ll I've heard from you is "your wrong" "America!!!" and "I have Rights!!!" And until you come up with something more decent or useful, I don't see any reason to continue this argument with you.

"You seem to assume that just because I have the words 'rights,' 'American,' and 'patriot' spread apart in my posts that I'm a rabble-rousing moron advocating the 'supremacy' of America towards all other countries."

I've asked you several times where exactly you get that mood, but you've yet to answer me. Every time someone accuses me of something they never point out to me where, they just have baseless accusations against me. My experiences with Esau, Crystal Shards, Death, Revan, Der Kommisar, Crepe Knight, Blacken, and (the?) Black Knight have been different however. Although I loathe Blacken, I respect everyone I named here.

Yes, I'm running away because you're right and I'm wrong. Leave it at that. And leave me alone <_<

You're such a smart-ass and I love it!!!

Now, how about you attack what wasn't in that spoiler, huh?

[Kanami]

I wouldn't say it's always prudent to stand against blind hate. I do think that at times, someone should do so, however.

~

I meant complex in regard to higher communication capabilities.

I agree that under certain circumstances an individual should stand up for himself. I just don't agree that it's admirable to do so. In regards to higher communication capabilities, I don't see why it matters what capability is higher. While I am a "social" creature, I don't have the urge to communicate with as many people as possible. On the contrary I prefer to have my own close group of friends.

How do you know? Today's age of communication is very powerful. You may already have communicated with an individual that lives near Ground Zero now.

~

But you would agree that an ant, for example, does not think and feel as you do?

~

The five-year-old is capable of growing and learning, and thus it is more tragic to me when a child dies before it ever becomes what it could have.

~

Why would you say that all animals are decidedly sentient? Or for that matter, sapient?

As stupid as this may sound, death and departure aren't too different for me on the internet. I'm interacting with Esau at the moment. Whether you die in a car accident, or simply get bored of the internet and vanish without a trace, doesn't make much of a difference to me. Say a friend of yours in on SF and told me that you'd died in a car accident. That would change the focus and emotions behind the departure. But as of yet, I've interacted and lost touch with a lot of people over the internet (many for the better). And have yet to be informed that any of them have died. (Excluding one).

My communicative abilities with you at present is limited to SF. If you were to quit SF tomorrow, you'd be gone and to me "Esau the online profile" would have "died" Should I feel grief over your departure? maybe (I'm not exactly friends with you) Should it hold an equal amount of weight to you actually dying? I'd like to think not. Simply put I can't feel anything for those who have died if I know nothing about them, if I don't know they died how can I mourn their deaths? And as a flow on, if I didn't know who they were before hand what am I giving weight? The sole fact that someone died?

I don't see the need to differentiate between the levels of feeling and communicative abilities. Obviously I value myself over an ant. I value myself over any other living human being for that matter. Depending on the sentimental value I place on the "ant" I could value it more then your life. Say it was a present from a close friend who I've lost touch with (Ant colony display thingies, though he'd be a pretty shitty friend in terms of presents). A life is a life as far as I see things, it's the amount of value attached to the life (personal value) that determines the weight of a loss. And I don't value a person I don't know.

The child, I don't like working with probabilities too much, since the child could have turned into a stupid serial rapist in terms of probabilities. And while there's no reason to think he'll turn into a rapist, there's no reason to believe his "communicative skills" would ever exceed the business man.

Is your cat the same as a random echinoderm? How about a snail? Do all three have the same ability to interpret their instinctual feelings and express it through identifiable emotions and behaviors?

I admit, they're different, but removing the fact that it's "my" cat. And saying it's just a typical cat. Their abilities are obviously as you say different. However why should I judge a being on it's ability to feel and share? A "retarded" person probably doesn't have the potential (or as big a potential) in comparison to a typical person. I'm sure you're not telling me I should value the typical person more, simply because the "retarded" doesn't have the ability to share and communicate as effectively. (Or is that what you're saying?)

No, you're making a mistake in stating that when one shares their emotions, you have the option to not share your own. Communication isn't controllable like that. There isn't a way by which to not react to something that someone communicates to you. You may mask your irritation, but the person that is transmitting their feelings to you will receive their own message from you, whether you purposely encoded a direct message or not.

It might be a source of irritation at some points, but communication is ultimately a form of subsistence for humans. Sure, it may irritate you now, but if you'd lacked human contact for months, it would probably be like a legendary fable told by Gandalf the Grey. Or something. The point is, it's easy to say that communication is a pain in the same sense it can be easy for someone that just got done chowing down at a Thanksgiving festival to say that food is unnecessary.

Hmmm communication error XD Obviously a reaction is automatic, I didn't mean that I can control my emotions that well. However the communication phase itself can be removed. Lets say I see you as an idiot. If I tell you that then you'd react (in some minor form). However if I didn't tell you, you wouldn't make that reaction. And since I can foresee the reaction to be negative I wouldn't do it. Unless I wanted to cause a negative reaction In terms of lacing "social contact" for a prolonged period of time, I may listen in awe, but I'd prefer to meet a friend opposed to some random individual.

Communication is a pain, while we may react to being called an idiot. I don't think anyone would jump up in excitement at being called one. It's a (relatively) painful remark. And in a good portion of cases it is unnecessary to say so. Not all communication is painful, but not all communication is unpainful. Telling a six year old kid that his parents didn't want him, isn't going to do much good.

The point of the argument is not one of probability, but one of overall impact the individuals can have on yourself, which you care for most. Keep in mind that the World Trade Center was a particularly important area in which tens of thousands of people could regularly interact, in an area known for cultural diversity. Granted, "only" a few thousand died, but the possibility of none of them having affected you is roughly zero.

~

Though I guess we're talking about direct communication, so I can't really say what the probability was of you ever meeting any of them. But stranger things have happened.

I agree, I may have interacted with them, however I don't know who they are. I haven't paid enough attention to that incident to even know one victims name. I could probably look it up if I wanted, but I don't. And I can't feel dismayed by a fact I'm not aware of. One of the victims could have been planning to leave the US and become my neighbor, but I'll never know that. And feeling upset over such a slim possibility seems rather..... silly?

I would feel bad if your family cat died, since you cared for the cat since you're going far enough to let me know your feelings.

~

I would judge news you give to me based on importance of the one that you lost. If your father died but you disliked them, I would feel some measure of sadness both because you lost a father and you lacking a good relationship with your father, but if you lost a neighbor that you knew as close as a brother, I would feel much sadness.

~

I feel sadness for the family first, but I still feel sadness for those whose lives were lost.

Again highlighting the communication potential, The potential of communicating with my father would have been much higher then the neighbor, yet you and myself both would feel worse with the brother like neighbor. Highlighting sentimental value over an individuals capabilities and possibilities.

I think it's clear that I'm much more "insensitive" then you are in regards to a death. While hardly accurate:

Devastated: (Esau Family)

Saddened: (Esau Deceased)/(Kanami Family)

Attention: (Kanami Deceased if she knew them)

Doesn't care: (Kanami Deceased)

I personally don't think there's a right or wrong in feeling this way. And don't think your position or my position makes for a better person.

So if I could reliably prove that a number of the individuals that died in such an attack could have likely become friends of yours, would you then feel sadness?

You've said it yourself, you'd feel "some measure of sadness that you(me) had to face the death of someone." Your sympathy lies with me then the deceased victim. So you're sympathizing with the non-deceased victims (family and friends of the deceased) before the deceased himself.

No, I wouldn't. Potential friends and friends are different.

Finally, yes I have placed value on you before the deceased. That's because I know you (very little of but still know) while I don't even know if you have a neighbor, you could live in the middle of nowhere for all I know. And I've acknowledged that there's potential for me to feel for the living victims, before the deceased himself. However if Phoneix Wright told me his neighbor died, my response would be "Yeah, so?"

[Esau of Isaac]

I agree that under certain circumstances an individual should stand up for himself. I just don't agree that it's admirable to do so. In regards to higher communication capabilities, I don't see why it matters what capability is higher. While I am a "social" creature, I don't have the urge to communicate with as many people as possible. On the contrary I prefer to have my own close group of friends.

I didn't say that you have the urge to communicate with as many people as possible. What I am more saying is that communication with a human is more colored with more potential than with another animal.

As stupid as this may sound, death and departure aren't too different for me on the internet. I'm interacting with Esau at the moment. Whether you die in a car accident, or simply get bored of the internet and vanish without a trace, doesn't make much of a difference to me. Say a friend of yours in on SF and told me that you'd died in a car accident. That would change the focus and emotions behind the departure. But as of yet, I've interacted and lost touch with a lot of people over the internet (many for the better). And have yet to be informed that any of them have died. (Excluding one).

I was more just pointing out that it's not impossible for individuals within the WTC to have interacted with you at some point online.

I don't see the need to differentiate between the levels of feeling and communicative abilities. Obviously I value myself over an ant. I value myself over any other living human being for that matter. Depending on the sentimental value I place on the "ant" I could value it more then your life. Say it was a present from a close friend who I've lost touch with (Ant colony display thingies, though he'd be a pretty shitty friend in terms of presents). A life is a life as far as I see things, it's the amount of value attached to the life (personal value) that determines the weight of a loss. And I don't value a person I don't know.

You can't value a person you don't know? Essentially, if you were to hear about a person having died and a bacterium having been eliminated, you would react the same? They are both forms of life, and both have died.

The child, I don't like working with probabilities too much, since the child could have turned into a stupid serial rapist in terms of probabilities. And while there's no reason to think he'll turn into a rapist, there's no reason to believe his "communicative skills" would ever exceed the business man.

I don't believe that communicative skills differentiating between the average male and an entrepreneur is anywhere near the difference between the average male and an ant. That sounds rather silly to me.

I admit, they're different, but removing the fact that it's "my" cat. And saying it's just a typical cat. Their abilities are obviously as you say different. However why should I judge a being on it's ability to feel and share? A "retarded" person probably doesn't have the potential (or as big a potential) in comparison to a typical person. I'm sure you're not telling me I should value the typical person more, simply because the "retarded" doesn't have the ability to share and communicate as effectively. (Or is that what you're saying?)

The "retarded" individual doesn't necessarily lack the ability to feel as any other human being. They may lack the facilities necessary to communicate as well as others, but even in the worst cases, it is still words better than the average pet.

There is also the attachment because the individual resembles us, or is important to us. I do not definitively think of all humans in a vegetative state as people on account of brain-death, though I certainly would think of my mother in such a state as one.

Hmmm communication error XD Obviously a reaction is automatic, I didn't mean that I can control my emotions that well. However the communication phase itself can be removed. Lets say I see you as an idiot. If I tell you that then you'd react (in some minor form). However if I didn't tell you, you wouldn't make that reaction. And since I can foresee the reaction to be negative I wouldn't do it. Unless I wanted to cause a negative reaction In terms of lacing "social contact" for a prolonged period of time, I may listen in awe, but I'd prefer to meet a friend opposed to some random individual.

Communication is a pain, while we may react to being called an idiot. I don't think anyone would jump up in excitement at being called one. It's a (relatively) painful remark. And in a good portion of cases it is unnecessary to say so. Not all communication is painful, but not all communication is unpainful. Telling a six year old kid that his parents didn't want him, isn't going to do much good.

You can foresee the reaction and not tell me verbally, but you may be bad at keeping your non-verbal cues from letting me in on what you think. And of course you'd prefer to meet a friend, but after being socially starved for months and months just about anyone would be ecstatic to talk with anyone.

I agree, I may have interacted with them, however I don't know who they are. I haven't paid enough attention to that incident to even know one victims name. I could probably look it up if I wanted, but I don't. And I can't feel dismayed by a fact I'm not aware of. One of the victims could have been planning to leave the US and become my neighbor, but I'll never know that. And feeling upset over such a slim possibility seems rather..... silly?

Again, I'm presenting a more logical argument to appeal to your own sensibilities to show why you may have lost something as a result of the event.

Again highlighting the communication potential, The potential of communicating with my father would have been much higher then the neighbor, yet you and myself both would feel worse with the brother like neighbor. Highlighting sentimental value over an individuals capabilities and possibilities.

Well, not necessarily. I am sad for you because the loss of one you cared for. I am sad for him because he lost life possibly before what would have been a better death for him and his family.

I think it's clear that I'm much more "insensitive" then you are in regards to a death. While hardly accurate:

Devastated: (Esau Family)

Saddened: (Esau Deceased)/(Kanami Family)

Attention: (Kanami Deceased if she knew them)

Doesn't care: (Kanami Deceased)

I personally don't think there's a right or wrong in feeling this way. And don't think your position or my position makes for a better person.

Well I guess on a plus side you're as sad as I am less often. :V

No, I wouldn't. Potential friends and friends are different.

Finally, yes I have placed value on you before the deceased. That's because I know you (very little of but still know) while I don't even know if you have a neighbor, you could live in the middle of nowhere for all I know. And I've acknowledged that there's potential for me to feel for the living victims, before the deceased himself. However if Phoneix Wright told me his neighbor died, my response would be "Yeah, so?"

Sorry, I kind of accidentally posted your words after mine in my last post. >__>

[Phoenix Wright]

Finally, yes I have placed value on you before the deceased. That's because I know you (very little of but still know) while I don't even know if you have a neighbor, you could live in the middle of nowhere for all I know. And I've acknowledged that there's potential for me to feel for the living victims, before the deceased himself. However if Phoneix Wright told me his neighbor died, my response would be "Yeah, so?"

Why does your personal opinion of me influence what you think of another's life altogether?

[Esau of Isaac]

He is trying to say that he knows you better than he does the neighbor that you (in such an instance) would have only then mentioned, and thus he places more sentimental value on you than your neighbor.

[Kanami]

I didn't say that you have the urge to communicate with as many people as possible. What I am more saying is that communication with a human is more colored with more potential than with another animal.

~

I was more just pointing out that it's not impossible for individuals within the WTC to have interacted with you at some point online.

~

You can't value a person you don't know? Essentially, if you were to hear about a person having died and a bacterium having been eliminated, you would react the same? They are both forms of life, and both have died.

You haven't said that specifically, but the idea of "they could have interacted with you" sort of implied to me that you were implying, since everyone has a potential to interact with me, I should keep an open mind and look at a death of a person, as a lost communication chance. (In which case the number of possible interactions and saddness would be near infinite)

I agree it's not impossible, but again, I can't care for something I don't know about. And that potential was never acknowledged by me before their deaths. And now that they are dead, that potential too doesn't exist.

Interesting comparison with the bacteria and human. But broadly speaking, yes I would react the same. In that example it depends on the bacteria or person. If the bacteria was the cause of illness then I'd be happy, and if the human was a guilty criminal I'd be happy. Likewise if the bacteria prevented illness and the person was a typical person... I'd probably pay attention to the bacteria more actually :/

I don't believe that communicative skills differentiating between the average male and an entrepreneur is anywhere near the difference between the average male and an ant. That sounds rather silly to me.

The comparison isn't supposed to illustrate the difference in capabilities, I've repeatedly said that I don't really think that an individuals capabilities is related to how tragic the death is.

The "retarded" individual doesn't necessarily lack the ability to feel as any other human being. They may lack the facilities necessary to communicate as well as others, but even in the worst cases, it is still words better than the average pet.

It doesn't lack the ability to feel, but it does lack the ability to communicate as effectively, the comparison here is not between the animal and human (Human and ant in your example) but human and human. A non-retarded with a retarded.

You can foresee the reaction and not tell me verbally, but you may be bad at keeping your non-verbal cues from letting me in on what you think. And of course you'd prefer to meet a friend, but after being socially starved for months and months just about anyone would be ecstatic to talk with anyone.

My non-verbal cues don't really exist with you, unless you're reading into comments which creates a high chance of error. In a RL situation though, those verbal cues are just as likely to be missed as noticed.

To flip the situation, what makes the death of a loved one more important then the death of an unknown? Assuming the unknown was loved as well. What's the difference between your mother dying, and Bob's mother dying? Aren't they equally as tragic? Bobs mother had equal capabilities as your mother. Both are human beings.

Well I guess on a plus side you're as sad as I am less often. :V

Which is my main reason for this approach, why would I want to make myself feel more "sad" then neccessary? I know this isn't an issue where you can flip the switch and your emotions go off. However trying to convince me I should care about the life of unknowns is convincing me to feel more negative about the things that occur around me (in this world).

He is trying to say that he knows you better than he does the neighbor that you (in such an instance) would have only then mentioned, and thus he places more sentimental value on you than your neighbor.

This, except I'm a she :P Edited October 14, 2010 by Kanami