This really doesn't address my point whatsoever. I guess I have to speak 100% literally with you then: this is an insignificant percentage. Get it? They have essentially no political power or any kind of power within a collective. Their votes are always incidental to the internal conflict raged between the major Christians in office or the citizens of the country itself. And yet they are or have been properly represented in Congress by the 1 or 2 guys ever in history to be elected while atheists certainly do not have the 15-20% of Congress that they deserve. The same goes for women. Their existence in the United States is highly overestimated. Even though they have no real influence, their meaningless presence in Congress and their relationship to the Taliban inflates their perceived numbers. I just want to make sure this is recognized. It is an important part of my stance that you somehow decided to shake off.
How did I shake this off in any way? I addressed literally every sentence of the section I quoted and was responding to. You said something that I thought was meant to be facetious because it is absurd and completely illogical when taken literally. I therefore responded in kind. If .6-1.6% of the population 'didn't exist' then it wouldn't be represented in a fraction at all. If you have $300 million, 1.6% is almost $5 million. 5 million of anything in comparison with 300 million is pretty small. But that doesn't mean that 5 million doesn't exist. See, cuz if it didn't, there wouldn't be 300 million total anymore. 100% becomes $295 million.
Since I guess I wasn't supposed to take you 100% literally, as you say, I'll try to read deeper into that extremely vague statement that did not directly address the part of my post that
you quoted. They represent a small fraction of the American population, yes, but how do you go from that fact to saying they therefore don't deserve recognition, which is what you are clearly saying? A person doesn't get fewer civil liberties or rights because his group is fewer in number than the majority. America in particular is founded on the importance of equality and has many rules and laws enacted specifically to protect a minority group from being ignored or mistreated. My point is, saying Muslims comprise a small part of our country has nothing to do with whether or not one of them should be able to build a mosque. In the same sense, saying that America is mainly comprised of Christians doesn't mean Christians should have first dibs on a plot of land to build a church regardless of ownership.
Let me know if Im not directly responding to your statement here again. You say the mosque absolutely should not be built. The first reason you cite is the fact that the Muslim presence in America is tiny. You then say Atheists represent a larger fraction of the country than Muslims. I respond by saying the percentage makes no difference in whether or not Muslims have the right to build a mosque or Atheists have the right to build an atheist center. You say Muslims have been proportionately represented in Congress, but Atheists have not been. I say its sad atheists have not been better spoken for, (I genuinely feel this way, by the way) but that doesnt have anything to do with whether or not they should get to build a center. You say my acceptance of an atheist center is me shrugging that idea off.
Then I responded to your atheist statement, I thought, fairly clearly. I wouldn't mind an atheist center. Period. You said they should build an atheist center, I said, okay, they should build an atheist center. But that's irrelevant to the argument we're having because the question isn't which religion should get to stake a claim somewhere because of its popularity, the question is whether or not a Muslim should get to stake a claim in a specific spot. I wasn't trying to shrug it off, I directly responded to your statement. It would take some amazing reading between the lines on my part to know that you actually meant they shouldn't build a mosque because it's not fair that Muslims are proportionally represented in Congress while Atheists are all but ignored. I get what you're saying I think. You're expressing frustration at the amount of attention and significance Muslims are given, when in reality they represent a smaller portion of America than atheists. But why does that mean atheists should therefore get to build a center first?
The woman thing, however, makes no sense to me. Women's presence in America is not overestimated. And their presence in Congress is not inconsequential. And they carry a tremendous amount of influence. Unjustly, not as much as men, but still an amount of influence that can't be completely dismissed. Then the relationship to the Taliban thing completely lost me. How are women in Congress related to the Taliban, and how does this inflate their perceived numbers? Or were you back to Muslims, because that's not really what your phrasing and structure of sentences implies. Not trying to be a stickler for grammar if that's what you meant, but I really don't know how to respond to this because I don't know who exactly you're referring to. Whichever party this statement was in reference to, it still doesn't make sense to me because the Taliban does nothing to inflate the Muslim presence in Congress any more than it does for the female presence in Congress.
Implying Muslims are??? Even if you don't admit to it, it's strange that this kind of syntax is used only in relation with Muslims. If we were talking about a Synagogue then maybe you would have said something along the lines of "Atheists aren't an inherently greedy religious group" or some other inherently racist negation. You liberal democrats need to take your own multiculturalist medicine sometimes. Prejudice much???? Sorry, but it's more than just a slip of terms here.
First of all, that 'syntax' is
not used only in relation with Muslims. I can think of literally dozens of social groups that have been given that very label. Apparently, I need to be 100% literal with
you as well: my use of the phrase "inherently violent" was completely, (and I mistakenly thought obviously) sarcastic. If you have read any of my previous, I don't know, five posts, you will have seen that I do not in any way equate Islam or Muslims with violence. Quite the contrary. I believe I have actually attacked that precise phraseology several times; this wasn't a "slip of terms" as you say. I was using a rhetorical device in which the incongruity of my words and sentiment were meant to illustrate there is no logical connection between the terminology (inherently violent) and the group being defined (Muslims/Atheists/Canadians/Aliens). But Ill be clear and literal now: Muslims are NOT inherently violent people; Islam is NOT an inherently violent religion. I dont condone the building of an atheism center because they arent an inherently violent group, but because they are a completely violence-neutral group whose only threat of danger lies in how others perceive them and react to their presence. Kind of like Islam.
You specifically chose to excuse the Atheists by bringing up a tenet of "inherent violence" that I did not bring up.
I specifically chose to excuse the Atheists by bringing up a tenet of "inherent violence" that many people who oppose the mosque's construction have brought up numerous times. I was (apparently unsuccessfully) being ironic.
And for someone who thinks its strange that I bring up a tenet of inherent violence without you even mentioning it, you didn't seem to have a problem with bringing up synagogues and greed without me mentioning Judaism at all.
Also, I'm not a liberal Democrat and I therefore require no multiculturalist medicines.
This is a classic hyperbolic misconstrual of anything I said, which was quite specific. I don't believe I ever said anywhere close to the converse of what you retort my statement with "zero tolerance for other religions" or even that Christianity shouldn't "accept all world religions", whatever this really means, which I don't think you yourself even know. If you don't get what I am saying, then I will explain it to you. It is essentially the same as my other point which you shook off. The problem is that you shook both off for the same reason: what you would like versus what is. Sorry, but if Muslims were exiled from America, almost nothing about it would change. Sorry, but there is no politics or government with Christian influence that exists to any substantial degree in America. I'm sorry if neither of these facts are things you want to come to terms with, but they are important here.
This is what you said:
This is a de facto Christian nation. Nothing is ever going to change that. I don't pretend. Any more pretending is a self-deception. You say this in support of why a mosque shouldnt be built. If you dont get what I am saying, then I will explain it to you-- I made some assumptions here, but not very fantastic ones, in connecting these concepts: First, I linked the notion that we are a de facto Christian nation with the idea of having a mosque. Why would us being Christians in any way logically lead to
opposing a mosque? I guess because Christianity holds that you dont support the construction of religious structures for other religions. Next, I thought of what this opinion implies. I came up with, Christianity opposes the construction of a mosque because they do not tolerate the religion of that mosque. I guess I could have jumped first to saying Christians arent
comfortable with a mosque and therefore it isnt a
good idea to build it. But this represents an opinion and would be a really weak argument coming from you in particular. Thats saying, well, we dont really get along too well, so that is clear evidence of why we absolutely shouldnt allow this guy to build a mosque. And maybe I could have specified Islam in general instead of all world religions. But if thats what you mean, then youre basically arguing that, no, I never said we shouldnt tolerate
all world religions, just Islam. But neither of those interpretations would offer definitive proof in itself of why a mosque should not be built, as I think youre attempting to do. Now, saying that America is Christian-and Christianity is opposed to Islam-and Christians should have say as to what goes where since they comprise a majority-and since they oppose Islam a mosque shouldnt be built, is logic I can trail and follows a pragmatism more akin to your argument style. The only problem is, that logic is flawed.
But to address your words directly
First of all, if you want to nitpick every single sentence to point out its contradictions or explain why it
technically doesn't apply to the statement it's responding to--and it seems you do--then this sentence is almost diametrically opposed to your statement about the nonexistence of politics or government with Christian influence in America.
We are the government. If we are in fact a de facto Christian nation, and we, as you imply, measure our actions in accordance with this label, then aren't the actions we take as a country influenced by our Christianity?
But were not the government, you will skeptically say (even though we really are),
the people we elect are. Fine, but I know of zero members of Congress who will deny consulting with a higher power of some sort, and this higher power is usually God as Christians see him. I say I
know of none, not
there are none. Nows a good time to clarify this to save you the trouble of Wikiing which Congressmen believe in God so you can attack my stance with more misreadings and broad, largely inaccurate assumptions about me. And a vast majority of Americans value some form of religious adherence in their leaders. Whenever one politician seems to subscribe to fringe beliefs, or doesnt seem fervent enough in his faith, his opponent will undoubtedly attack his character as if this ignorance of religion would impair his abilities as a leader. But why would this hurt a candidate if Americans dont want a Christian influence in their government and politics? In yearly polls conducted for decades, an alarming percentage of Americans routinely say their president does not rely enough on his religious beliefs when considering decisions he makes for the country. The point here isnt that presidents arent relying on religion so theres no Christian influence in government, as Im sure youre itching to point out, but that Americans think they should consult their religious beliefs for political guidance in the first place.
Maybe I need to also clarify my definition of "world religions." I thought this was a rather obvious expression that required no deeper examination, but I guess I need to waste more space and explain what these world religions are and prove to you that I know them and am thus worthy of debating with you. I refer to all major world religions. Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Confucianism, Gnosticism, Atheism, and all the other religions generally accepted and practiced in large portions of a population in any given country. This does not mean a religion in which the higher power is blood and members kill people to be rewarded in the afterlife. This does not mean a religion in which the primary goal of the movement is to harm others. I need to say that before you make more assumptions about me and say I think Americans should support an obscure religion that rapes babies ceremoniously.
Im dying to know, what, in your opinion, is what "I would like," and what is "what is?" How do you know what I would like to be the case and how do I know that you actually know what the reality is? And if Muslims left America, nothing would change? What the hell does that matter in this conversation?! How does this in any way support your opinion that a Muslim who
does live in America should not build a mosque? If every other Muslim in America left besides him, and he owned the property and wanted to build a mosque, then he should still be able to build a mosque, assuming he follows the regulations any developer must in building a public structure.
I'm not sure where this comes from. I never suggested that this kind of property communicates both ways. Again, you have this falsely "pho"-egalitarian fantasy surrounding everything, which is not really idealism, since I don't think you really believe it. Ground zero is in one of the United States proudest cities. It's also the ground zero at which WE were attacked by THEM.
This is what you said:
The price of equalizing that area was the price of those buildings and the people in it. Nothing more needs to be done. We do not need to force the issue. You are only deceiving yourself that it's doing anything but making people uncomfortable. How am I wrong for assuming this applies to building a mosque, but not to building a memorial? So building a mosque purportedly meant to encourage acceptance (and we really have no reason to presume theres an ulterior motive) forces the issue and could never equal the price of those buildings and the people in it, but building another building (even one dedicated to the memory of the victims) can? I think a memorial can work positively in the community and our country, but I think a mosque might also. But following your rule that the only way to make up for the damage and avoid forcing the issue is to equal the lives of the victims and the buildings themselves, then even a memorial falls short here. And what are the both ways that are being communicated? Is one way a mosque-and that cant work, and the opposite way is a memorial-and that can work? Why is a mosque bad in the same way that a memorial is good?
Ground zero is where WE were attacked by TERRORISTS. Not Muslims as a group. If the them refers to the former, then it should have nothing to do with building a mosque, because THEY aren't the ones behind it; if it refers to the latter, then you should probably look in the mirror before you accuse me of being prejudiced.
And you do not know what I do or dont believe in.
It's not some sort of mediating battleground where both sides had equal losses and the generals shake hands. I'm actually quite disturbed by your equating the construction of a memorial to the construction of a Mosque, which is either completely unrelated to (doubtful) or a deliberate insult to the site.
So the man building the mosque is either oblivious the same way Glenn Beck was in choosing the anniversaries of MLK's I Have a Dream speech and 9/11 for holding major rallies, OR he is deliberately insulting the site? That's it? There can't be more to it--it's one or the other? There are several options you completely overlook here. Like, maybe it is
directly related to its location and is
in no way a deliberate insult to the site. In fact, why would you assume it's a deliberate insult in the first place?
Dont be disturbed. Im not saying the mosque should be built in the footstep of WTC and should be Americas sole representation of rebuilding after the attacks.
That would be equating it to the memorial being built at ground zero. Its
one mosque outside of ground zero, and we already have multiple projects underway on the actual ground zero. Im saying we shouldnt
dismiss the mosque when it could be a fine demonstration of renewal after the attacks. Freedom Tower is nice and all, and it does illustrate our countrys resolve in a way, ignoring the red tape nightmare that was getting the project off the ground. But we erect buildings every day, many of which are far more ambitious than the projects going on in New York. The building is so important because it is a message. Wouldnt building a mosque in New York send an even stronger message? That we are willing to understand and accept Islam, and to avoid falling into the trap of attacking people who
look like the perpetrators but in fact are
not them? The only thing Im equating is the construction of one symbol to the construction of another, in another place, while still giving more attention to the primary symbol--the memorial.
Im not sure if youre saying
Im deliberately insulting the site, or the man building it is. But let me be clear: Im not. The battleground thing only proves that we shouldnt let terrorists build near ground zero. But we arent; the only thing the terrorists and the people who hope to pray in the mosque share in common is their religion, and they have radically and fundamentally different interpretations of it. And the entire landscape of Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan were not some sort of mediating battleground where both sides had equal losses and the generals shake hands either. And none of those places are on American soil (until we claimed it), and no American rightfully owns the land; so I would say the guy has more of a right to build a mosque in America than an American does to build an oil well in Iraq. Im not trying to start s___ here with the whole blood for oil diatribe, but you made the connection to battleground as if that had something to do with proprietary ownership and such.
Actually, let me rephrase the latter. It's more a kind of Muslim blackmail of yunz guyz n at's liberal democratic multiculturalist sensibilities.
I'm not trying to be funny or dismissive here, but I have no idea what this means.
The first two sentences are a self-contradiction, but I'll go with the sentiment you ended on. I agree with you there, but a memorial on the site of ground zero constructed by the United States is not the same as a random Mosque placed near the site. I don't know how you go it in your mind that these are somehow equal. I think you want so much for Muslims to be "properly" represented that you are willing to go to this pho-egalitarian stance that even monuments that WE BUILD should somehow be questioned with the same logic as that of a Mosque. No. This is the country that WAS ATTACKED.
Yes. The first two sentences you quoted were meant to contradict. Thats why the second sentence began with but. Heres the entirety of what I said:
In that sense, building any sort of monument for 9/11 would be forcing the issue. It need not be done because nothing could ever make up for the events. But I don't think memorials are constructed to heal the wounds or to even out terrible events with a pretty building. That was in response to the whole bit I addressed above. Ill break down the paragraph for you. I was following the logic of what it would take to not be forcing the issue. If a mosque that could potentially foster peace and symbolize a bold new direction in American-Islamic relations isnt enough, neither is a building that says how sad the events were. But I dont actually adhere to your rule. So my first sentence is saying what I thought your statement implied (and I addressed it above so Im not going to defend it here and you dont have to retort here), then my second sentence is a continuation of the first one. Thats why it begins with the word it instead of building. I was already referring to the building, I just dont want to repeat it in consecutive sentences. Then the third sentence is
my opinion, which stands in
opposition to what I thought your statement implied. Hence, the but, and a return to the noun (building/memorial). It is an entirely new statement that takes the paragraph in a different direction.
Moving past this grammar lesson that I realize now comes across as a little condescending, theyre not building a random mosque. The mosque and cultural center serves a very specific purpose and its location helps to vocalize that purpose. I dont think the guy is expecting anyone to believe he randomly chose the spot, or that he disregarded the fact that an attack that literally changed our nationthe worldforever less than a decade ago was carried out by people whom everyone instinctively connects with his religion. You dont know how [i] got in my mind that these are somehow equal? I dont know how you got into your mind the notion that Im in favor of a mosque
instead of a memorial because theyre equal or would represent the same thing for NY and the country. They are building a memorial; its already several stories above ground. They are planning on building an entire complex, which amounts to a memorial; these structures are already underway. In addition to all thisnot in place of it, it would not be a bad thing to build a mosque
near-not at--the site, not even a close enough distance to be
seen from ground zero, as this could also be a positive addition to the city.
Who is WE exactly? Americans greatly affected by the attacks? The Imam masterminding the project is an Arab American. As in an American citizen. On top of that, he is the head of a mosque in New York. Plus, he deals every day with people who think he hates America and wants to kill everyone as a direct result of the attacks. He too was greatly affected by the tragedy. He probably even knew people who died that day. If the WE who were ATTACKED are all Americans, then he should be included in this. And this isnt some pho-egalitarian stance. The people who will worship in the mosque
are American. You have fallen into this us and them trap when in reality, it's just us vs. us. Any structure built should be given as much examination as a mosque. Why is a mosque different than any other building? An American will be building it, to serve his purposes and the purposes of the community as a whole. I assume that's pretty much the intent of everyone who seeks to construct a building.
In other words, you mean that these are three mutually exclusive options:
1) The terrorists are putting a flag next to a victory site.
2) Muslims poking at old, unhealed wounds.
3) A group is building it to encourage brotherhood and understanding.
However, the reality is much more like this:
Muslims or pseudo-multiculturalists as yourself are poking at old, "unhealed wounds", in order to force a public, pho/pseudo(whatever you want)-egalitarian confirmation of "brotherhood" and "understanding".
Yes, I see these as mutually exclusive options. I highly doubt the Imam t is a terrorist putting a flag next to a victory site and simultaneously trying to encourage brotherhood and understanding with his eternal enemy. I highly doubt he is a non-terrorist Muslim poking at old unhealed wounds to garner attention and instigate Americans while at the same time trying to encourage brotherhood and understanding. And I highly doubt he is both a terrorist putting a flag next to a victory site and a non-terrorist Muslim poking an old, unhealed wound for attention.
Again, not a multiculturalist, nor a Muslim, and Im not trying to force some chiefly superficial image of brotherhood to affirm my feelings that this can be a peaceful country. The wounds wont heal until we address them. I think the mosque and cultural center is a tasteful proposition. It is not meant as a slap in the face to Americans. How do you come to that conclusion? That would only be the case if the Imam were a terroristwhich he is nottrying to display his daring with little care for how it will reflect on his religion and peoplewhich he is not.
Here my first two points come back. Muslims are not equal with Christians in America. They are nearly non-existent. Civil rights does not mean an absolute equalization of all groups. Egalitarianism does not mean equality for all groups but proportional representation. Multiculturalism stresses "brotherhood" and "understanding", but it's clear now that it's this myth of a common ground of understanding that's mutually exclusive.
So, basically, youre labeling me a civil rights activist, an egalitarian, and a multiculturalist, and then saying why my opinions on this matter dont run parallel to the tenets of those belief systems. Shouldnt that tell you something? Like maybe Im
not the things you assume I am? But thats besides the point. Heres your basic logic: Muslims are not as strongly represented in the population as Christians. This is why a mosque shouldnt be built near ground zero.
Ad hominem? [shoutbox] More like
ignoratio elenchi. The number of Muslims in the country has
literally, absolutely, unequivocally nothing to do with this conversation. You say Im choosing to ignore that fact. But throughout your argument you have refused to ignore the fact that much of the hate directed at the mosque proposal is fueled by hate and racism (Not by you or anyone on this thread that I know of. Really, I know youre not a racist, as you have done nothing to announce yourself as such). You know why I dont care though?
Because thats completely irrelevant. Your saying that the mosque shouldnt be built because there are so few, completely inconsequential Muslims in America is just as valid as my saying the mosque should be built because opponents of it are just racists. That is, not valid at all. So lets both ignore both of those facts.
That's why I love the term "ground zero Mosque". It's trying to force the existence of a zero-level co-existence between Muslims and Christians in order to resolve the divide between them caused by 9/11 for the so-perceived "good, virtuousness" of creating an open society free from hatreds and prejudices.
Skeptical much? With this statement, you are basically coming across as so skeptical that you question the very virtue of a society free from hatred and prejudice. So-perceived goodness? This seems like tangible, corporeal goodness. Why would you attack someone for striving for a peaceful co-existence between Muslims and Christians? This just makes it seem like you dont want that to occur. Co-existence between blacks and whites for most of this countrys history wasnt too great either, until that problem was addressed head on with legislation and an entire movement. Same with the Irish and the rest of America, and Asians for a while, and Hispanic people right now, and many other groups that are slowly but surely being accepted equally with the majority.
Sorry, but even if 9/11 didn't happen, prejudices and hatreds would still exist. Sorry, but even if we ignore all the Christian v. Muslim history, hatreds would still exist. Sorry, but this is CULTURE. You're not going to resolve it EVER. Unless you want to destroy culture altogether, which multiculturalists also don't want to do.
Hatred existing is another fact that does nothing to support your argument of why a mosque shouldnt be built. That could possibly work in the it could lead to violence stance, but weve agreed this is not the argument were trying to prove. It doesnt need proof; its obvious. But lets take that thought for a moment. Hatred will always exist, so there is no need to try to break that cycle of hate. Racism and sexism will always exist as well, but that never stopped people from trying to combat those societal ills. CULTURE changes. It doesnt remain the same forEVER, and you know this. And hatred is a facet of culture that can be addressed. To say that it
is culture and culture is static and therefore we cant ever stop hatred and should not try is defeatist.
Or maybe I just want to destroy culture. Hmm. I guess that means Im not a multiculturalist. Funny, I was so sure I was.
Essentially you want to have your Muslim cake and eat it too. Sorry, but they will always taste bad to you because you are a Christian. Unless you want to sprinkle Christian flavoring on it, at which point they are no longer Muslim.
I'm not a Christian. I have never said I'm a Christian. I have never insinuated that I'm a Christian. Our
country, as
you have pointed out, is largely Christian, and in identifying the country I have often used the collective we. But thats because Im a citizen of this country, not because I hold fast to all its values and mores. Youre an American citizen who supports Communism, right? When you make the factual statement, We are a democratic republic, does that mean you support this form of government? No, it means the country in which you reside practices that form of government. And if youre referring to other Christians, not me, then this is another defeatist statement. Just because someone is a Christian doesnt automatically mean he is magically at odds with Islam. The two dont have to have any overlap. I know many, many Christians who could care less about other people and how they practice their faith. I know many more who
do care about how other people practice their faith but are not repulsed by it.
In other words, the multiculturalist cause of "brotherhood" is an ideological lie.
Umm. No.
I just argued that it can't and that this "purpose" is a self-deception that you and other liberal democrats as yourself tell yourself at night to convince yourself that you are good, understanding people. What you don't get is how there will always now be something inherently uncomfortable about a Muslim in America. That's PART OF our cultural relations now. Denying it is denying your own internal dialogue every time you get on a plane with a bunch of Muslims. Let's be real with ourselves, please.
You argued this? I must have missed the part where you clearly explained why it is utterly impossible for a mosque to in any way serve a purpose other than making people feel uncomfortable. I am not a liberal democrat; Im not a good person; and Im hardly understanding. I dont delude myself at night with hippie yearnings and idealistic thoughts to try to hide these facts. My opinions on this issue are in no way motivated by a need to make myself feel better. Im not directly or even indirectly affected by the outcome of this entire situation. You dont know me, stop trying to label me and speculate reasons behind my opinions based on five paragraphs written by me that you misinterpreted.
Lets be
real with ourselves? Okay. You accused me earlier of being prejudiced, which I am clearly not. Then you go on in that same paragraph to use a stereotype that I never even mentioned to illustrate a point that was hollow in the first place. Then you say youd be uncomfortable flying with a bunch of Muslims. Now youre saying there will
always be something inherently uncomfortable about a Muslim in America. A, you know you are speaking about this idea with more authority than you actually have. And B, this speaks volumes more about any prejudices you may have than a sarcastic comment that I clearly made in jest says about
my prejudices. Dont speak for the entire country. If you feel there will always be something inherently uncomfortable with a Muslim in America, you need to ask yourself why
you feel that way. Dont try to justify these feelings by saying the rest of the country now and always will share in that discomfort. If you
dont feel this way, then dont assume the rest of the country does and always will. Social dynamics are always changingthey are dynamic. We can look to the past for clues to the future, but we cant predict the future. And the overwhelming message Americas past tells us is weve gone through a lot of stages of hate and overcome them with due time, a little uneasiness, and a lot of effort.
I fly internationally several times a year, and take multiple plane rides each trip, each way. I have been on several flights with Muslims (or at least people I think were Muslim, though you cant tell by looking at anyone what their religion is). Im pretty sure I shared an armrest with one when I went to Paris earlier this year.
Never, and I mean never, have I
ever given any thought to what their reasons were for being on that plane.
Never, ever was I apprehensive about my safety on the flight.
Never, ever did I look at them any differently than anyone else on the plane. Ill save you the typing and respond to the skepticism you will inevitably answer with. Im not lying to myself or denying my true feelings, there really
are people who dont see color or do and dont allow it to affect their interactions with others, and Im not the only person in the world who feels this way.
It's called an apostrophe. Unless this was supposed to be some kind of defusing joke.
Whats supposed to be an apostrophe? Im not playing dumb, I really dont know what the apostrophe is referring to. But yes, it was supposed to be an off-hand, not-meant-to-be-analyzed joke. I didnt know you were gonna be so serious face about your response to a post that was pretty clearly casual and light-hearted. But here, I hope I sufficiently addressed each of your queries with equal seriousness and maturity.