Is it hypocritical . . .

[tpfkaw]

To support the Ground Zero mosque over the objections of 9/11 victims,* while opposing Glenn Beck's rally because it's on the same day as the "I have a dream" speech?

*Which, FYI, I do.

EDIT: I forgot "No. (hack)"  Oh well.

[You kip if you want to...]

Yes, although I oppose Beck's speech on different grounds. Mainly because Beck is an extremist idiot who has nothing to preach but bile and hatred, but I support his right to preach such things.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Yes!

[tpfkaw]

Yes!

Of course, the converse set of positions is also hypocritical.  Two sides of the same coin.

[opebo]

No - how could it be?  Beck and followers are blatant racists, while Muslims in general have nothing to do with the 9/11 (it was caused by Imperialists who mostly live in the NYC area, and are mostly not muslims anyway).

[Dr. Cynic]

I never opposed Beck's right to rally, nor on that day, nor on that location. Nor do I oppose the rights of Muslims to build a mosque on a location that they'd like, provided the government doesn't give them a penny.

I'm fine either way, because I have a life and neither of them effect me.

[© tweed]

real important issues we're dealing with here guys keep it up

[angus]

To support the Ground Zero mosque over the objections of 9/11 victims,* while opposing Glenn Beck's rally because it's on the same day as the "I have a dream" speech?

*Which, FYI, I do.

EDIT: I forgot "No. (hack)"  Oh well.

No.  Hypocrisy is a paradox of eithics.  A pretension of beliefs which one actually doesn't hold.

But there's really no paradox here.  Beck's right to encourage people to peaceably assemble to petition the government for a redress of grievances, or perceived grievances, is guaranteed by the first amendment--although it apparently wasn't so much political as some had hoped, according to most reports.  I wouldn't know, since I wasn't there, but I gather it was more about narcissistic self-aggrandizement than about petitioning the government for a redress of grievances--Still, his right to be there is absolute.  And the 47th anniversary of King's speech doesn't belong to you any more than it does to Beck, and if you'd reserved the mall before he did then you would have every right to speak on that day, or any other. 

The right to build a building on privately owned land, subject to zoning laws, is a matter for the NYC municipal government and is dealt with in an entirely different article of the constitution; the one that deals with federalism.  Namely, the tenth amendment.  Folks in Peoria really don't have much say in where and for whom the NYC municipal government ought to allow mosques.  Or shopping centers, or airports, or pornographers, for that matter.  I think it is legitimately possible for someone not to support free speech but support federalism, or vice-versa.  They're related only to the extent that they're both dealt with in the Constitution of the United States, and in the traditions of its people.

(Now, whether someone can legitimately claim to be a Libertarian while opposing Beck's right to have folks peaceably assemble to hear his haranguing is an entirely different question.)

[tpfkaw]

Erm . . . I do support Glenn Beck's right to have his rally on any public land he wants, and for Muslims to build mosques anywhere they have legal title.  I'm pointing out that those people, not including myself, who oppose Glenn Beck's rally but support the mosque, are hypocritical.  (as is the opposite set of positions)

[Tetro Kornbluth]

real important issues we're dealing with here guys keep it up

It's beyond satire, isn't it?

[© tweed]

real important issues we're dealing with here guys keep it up

It's beyond satire, isn't it?

glad you understand. I could play it cool and not answer, but that won't do anything. so I ask you, is this it? my display name is more than a posture. it's a question I've been asking. where is this all headed? people don't understand what's going on due to a concerted effort by other people, biologically equivalent to themselves. I see the contradictions of intelligent life just about every minute that I observe. what's my responsibility? are we just doomed by rule?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

real important issues we're dealing with here guys keep it up

It's beyond satire, isn't it?

glad you understand. I could play it cool and not answer, but that won't do anything. so I ask you, is this it? my display name is more than a posture. it's a question I've been asking. where is this all headed?

Probably towards a universe where, if it hasn't happened already, political theatre becomes completely inseparable from popular entertainment and the distinguishing between ‘importance’ and trivia fades into nothingness (of course, these were probably arbitrary designators to begin with).

Presidential Election 2016: Which brand of lipstick should President Palin use while speaking? You Decide! Dial One-Two-Three-And your chosen brand to the number shown on screen. Calls cost 65cent a minute

A whole forum would then be designated here to this issue. Ben Constine and Rochambeau would start many threads on it reminding us of the importance of this issue. Whole youth social identities will form around it among the ‘intellectual classes’ which no doubt, wish to impress us with their relevance and understanding of world affairs.

By 2024 to alleviate boredom young men would sign up for war in whichever part of the world displeases the US the most at that particular moment (I fancy a Latin American war) via the internet. They would fight guerrillas from a screen in the comfort of their own living room (Robots with Avatars, see). And so killing bad guys in Venezuela would become indistinguishable from a game of Grand Theft Auto: Whatever.

During the toilet breaks these internet warriors would turn among their friends and bitch about how immigrants from India and other parts of Asia – tech-wizards all – are trying to steal their jobs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I’ve never liked the whole ‘contradictions’ idea. Humans can not be contradictory, it’s the relationship between language or ideology or belief and reality which is where the contradictions lie. May I ask, which contradictions are mainly thinking about here?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To life live in a way which suits your morality. With the emphasis on ‘your’ – I don’t have that William Blake quote in my sig for nothing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Probably. It is interesting you say this while I was yet again breezing through online parts of Andre Gunder Frank’s ReOrient.

[angus]

Erm . . . I do support Glenn Beck's right to have his rally on any public land he wants, and for Muslims to build mosques anywhere they have legal title.  I'm pointing out that those people, not including myself, who oppose Glenn Beck's rally but support the mosque, are hypocritical.  (as is the opposite set of positions)

Ah, got it.  Brainfart.  I'm on board now.

So it's the temporal aspect that you think bothers them?  It was 47 years ago today that MLK made the speech.  So today is special?  Is 47 years any more special than 46 years and 364 days? And is 47 years special only when the 47-year period spans 12 leap years.  After all, some 47-year periods only span 11 leap years.  I guess that part's not important since the leap day is just a calendar adjustment.  Either way, 47 years means exactly 47 orbital periods of the Earth about the sun.  So Beck should pick some day other than that day which coincides with the day which marks the completion of the 47th orbit of the Earth about the Sun after MLK's speech?  It's a rather arbitrary day, really.  They could also have objected to the five-thousandth day after MLK's speech, or the day which begins the one-thousandth week.  I suppose any day Beck would have picked they could have found some astronomical or temporal objection.  But assuming that they really, truly are bothered by the fact that the speech corresponds to the day marking the 47th complete orbit of the Earth about the sun, and you want to examine hypocrisy, the I suggest you reword your question as follows:  "Is it hypocritical to object to Beck having his talk today while supporting a plan to break ground for a new mosque at the WTC site on September 11, 2048?"

Of course, there are three problems with that.  To begin with, so far no one has suggested groundbreaking on September 11, 2048.  Secondly, it isn't a mosque being suggested, but rather an Islamic cultural center intended to promote interfaith dialogue.  Thirdly, it will not be built at "ground zero" but rather several blocks away.  Thus there's really no good parallel anyway so that's clearly not the source of any perceived hypocrisy.

And of course there's still the fact that 47 orbital periods of the Earth is just as arbitrary as any other day you could choose, so I'm still back at square 1:  the hypocrisy, if it exists, lies rather more in the pretension.  There may very well be some pretension of beliefs, but we cannot say, without further evidence, that opposing Beck while supporting the "mosque" at "ground zero" is sufficient to charge hypocrisy.  (Eccentricity, sure, but not hypocrisy.)

So I'll stick with my NO vote.

[Penelope]

Not really, no.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Just because these beliefs do not conform to your (likely very narrow) views on the world, does not make them in conflict with one another.

And FTR, I dont give a flying [CENSORED] about what either group do, whenever or wherever they wish to do what they do.

[minionofmidas]

Was Beck claiming that he's somehow King's successor, also having a dream, or was that just a coincidence of date?
If the latter, the objection is exactly as stupid as that to a mosque in downtown New York. Though not as racist. If the first, there is a lot to object to (though thanks to the First Amendment you can't ban him from making such offensive claims). I suppose it's the latter, I don't know. I didn't actually follow either discussion.

Oh and kudos to Gully for this gem:

real important issues we're dealing with here guys keep it up

It's beyond satire, isn't it?

glad you understand. I could play it cool and not answer, but that won't do anything. so I ask you, is this it? my display name is more than a posture. it's a question I've been asking. where is this all headed?

Probably towards a universe where, if it hasn't happened already, political theatre becomes completely inseparable from popular entertainment and the distinguishing between ‘importance’ and trivia fades into nothingness (of course, these were probably arbitrary designators to begin with).

Presidential Election 2016: Which brand of lipstick should President Palin use while speaking? You Decide! Dial One-Two-Three-And your chosen brand to the number shown on screen. Calls cost 65cent a minute

A whole forum would then be designated here to this issue. Ben Constine and Rochambeau would start many threads on it reminding us of the importance of this issue. Whole youth social identities will form around it among the ‘intellectual classes’ which no doubt, wish to impress us with their relevance and understanding of world affairs.

By 2024 to alleviate boredom young men would sign up for war in whichever part of the world displeases the US the most at that particular moment (I fancy a Latin American war) via the internet. They would fight guerrillas from a screen in the comfort of their own living room (Robots with Avatars, see). And so killing bad guys in Venezuela would become indistinguishable from a game of Grand Theft Auto: Whatever.

During the toilet breaks these internet warriors would turn among their friends and bitch about how immigrants from India and other parts of Asia – tech-wizards all – are trying to steal their jobs.