Obama supports "Ground Zero Mosque" (of course he does)

Aramike · 09-02-10, 03:09 AM

In some papers I've written on this subject, I've recommended that people attempt to look at the situation through a lens I like to call the "Alien Effect". Despite the fact that it clearly sounds hokey, it certainly helps me at least find perspective on such unclear issues.

The Alien Effect essentially means attempting to consider the same arguments with the same circumstances except as one would apply them to unknown aliens from outerspace. The reason this works for me is that sometimes I believe its necessary to remove oneself's intuitive reactions from the discussion and that's quite difficult to do when considering one human to the next - we tend to think in terms of "how would I feel?" while dismissing that there are cultural differences which preclude such an elemantary comparison.

For example, let's say we discovered an inhabited island in the Pacific where the humans there tortured and killed their children for such transgressions as, say, slow educational development. This would universally be considered an outrage. However, say we discovered an alien species from another planet doing the same thing - this would be a mere curiousity.

So in the case of Islam, let's consider the Alien Effect. If we discovered aliens who's constitution required for the elimination of our way of life, would we allow them to construct icons to that constitution in our cities?

Absolutely not.

See, Steve is correct via the letter of the law, and he has a valid concern - if we take action against Islam, what's to stop any majority from taking action against any other group on the grounds that they believe it's dangerous? He is quite justified in having that concern.

On the other hand, the letter of the law can only take you so far, than the law's spirit must take over, ultimately giving way to common sense. In the end, giving in to the slippery slope argument is a cop-out. It allows us to not make difficult stands on things that we really should. If the alternative is to allow the subversion of freedom in support of freedom we approach a dangerous paradox which does not allow freedom to exist at all, thereby precluding the original concept of freedom rendering it irrelevant to the context.

So what's the solution? Do we allow aliens to build their icons of our destruction? Is there an absolute right or wrong answer?

Does freedom even matter when freedom allows for itself to be destroyed?

Personally, I believe that freedom needs reasonable limits, one of which is that the preservation of its primary functions is imperative. Islam IS a threat to that - just like the aliens would be.

However, pragmatism demands we coexist. Hence the difficulty of the discussion.

09-02-10, 03:09 AM	#11
Aramike Ocean Warrior Best of SUBSIM Chairman Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 3,207 Downloads: 59 Uploads: 0	In some papers I've written on this subject, I've recommended that people attempt to look at the situation through a lens I like to call the "Alien Effect". Despite the fact that it clearly sounds hokey, it certainly helps me at least find perspective on such unclear issues. The Alien Effect essentially means attempting to consider the same arguments with the same circumstances except as one would apply them to unknown aliens from outerspace. The reason this works for me is that sometimes I believe its necessary to remove oneself's intuitive reactions from the discussion and that's quite difficult to do when considering one human to the next - we tend to think in terms of "how would I feel?" while dismissing that there are cultural differences which preclude such an elemantary comparison. For example, let's say we discovered an inhabited island in the Pacific where the humans there tortured and killed their children for such transgressions as, say, slow educational development. This would universally be considered an outrage. However, say we discovered an alien species from another planet doing the same thing - this would be a mere curiousity. So in the case of Islam, let's consider the Alien Effect. If we discovered aliens who's constitution required for the elimination of our way of life, would we allow them to construct icons to that constitution in our cities? Absolutely not. See, Steve is correct via the letter of the law, and he has a valid concern - if we take action against Islam, what's to stop any majority from taking action against any other group on the grounds that they believe it's dangerous? He is quite justified in having that concern. On the other hand, the letter of the law can only take you so far, than the law's spirit must take over, ultimately giving way to common sense. In the end, giving in to the slippery slope argument is a cop-out. It allows us to not make difficult stands on things that we really should. If the alternative is to allow the subversion of freedom in support of freedom we approach a dangerous paradox which does not allow freedom to exist at all, thereby precluding the original concept of freedom rendering it irrelevant to the context. So what's the solution? Do we allow aliens to build their icons of our destruction? Is there an absolute right or wrong answer? Does freedom even matter when freedom allows for itself to be destroyed? Personally, I believe that freedom needs reasonable limits, one of which is that the preservation of its primary functions is imperative. Islam IS a threat to that - just like the aliens would be. However, pragmatism demands we coexist. Hence the difficulty of the discussion.