I don't know what troubles me more. That you whine about people whining, or that you seem to consider my carefully constructed arguments "whining"....David.P wrote:
Lowing man just give up. It doesn't matter who's right or wrong here, Just who has the most people whining on their side.
I don't think that bothers him much. He is a grown man, he can take it.Varegg wrote:
Don't you find it funny lowing that the only one that supports your view on this forum is yourself ? ... doesn't that strike you at all ?
Although you will have to admit that he has some support, from the likes of FEOS, David P, and others.
To be fair to FEOS, he's obviously right wing but he has a relatively decent head on his shoulders and does have the ability to be objective.B.Schuss wrote:
I don't think that bothers him much. He is a grown man, he can take it.Varegg wrote:
Don't you find it funny lowing that the only one that supports your view on this forum is yourself ? ... doesn't that strike you at all ?
Although you will have to admit that he has some support, from the likes of FEOS, David P, and others.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-04 05:44:06)
who is objective here anyway ?
Lowing, David, marine...so many...B.Schuss wrote:
who is objective here anyway ?
I'd say it's very difficult for any person who feels strongly about an issue to be 100% objective about it.sergeriver wrote:
Lowing, David, marine...so many...B.Schuss wrote:
who is objective here anyway ?
I can't be objective about my own objectivityB.Schuss wrote:
who is objective here anyway ?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Ok, but they are objective, they present facts showing 0,1% of a whole Community committing crimes and they have the right to call such Community extremist, violent and intolerant.B.Schuss wrote:
I'd say it's very difficult for any person who feels strongly about an issue to be 100% objective about it.sergeriver wrote:
Lowing, David, marine...so many...B.Schuss wrote:
who is objective here anyway ?
There is a methodology to being objective. One must allow themselves to experience a variety of different news outlets from far left to far right and everything in between, one must acknowledge their own empirical knowledge of the subject (or lack thereof) and at the same time not attach more significance to it than it truly merits, one must listen to varying opinions on the subject and be able to identify where actual hard, perceivable evidence does or does not back up these opinions and one must acknowledge facts even when they go against personal opinion.B.Schuss wrote:
I'd say it's very difficult for any person who feels strongly about an issue to be 100% objective about it.sergeriver wrote:
Lowing, David, marine...so many...B.Schuss wrote:
who is objective here anyway ?
...or you could just come out with crazy claims about the Google search engine and the evils of Islam!
/Facepalm. No point in arguing, The Hypocrisy is too much.
Hypocrisy in what way? Is it that we are all biased and lowing is balanced and objective?David.P wrote:
/Facepalm. No point in arguing, The Hypocrisy is too much.
Braddock, you can honestly say that you are unbiased....come on....You are biased about quite a few things and you show it in your posts just as much as lowing shows his bias in some of his posts. It is funny how Lowing is being made to look like an unfair, biased moron when many of you do the exact same thing.
We all have issues that we are passionate about. We will argue for them and he has the right to do so. Quit bashing him and get back on topic. At least Lowing provides some good threads that stay alive with debate and at least he has the balls to stand up for what he believes. Enough with the trashing.
We all have issues that we are passionate about. We will argue for them and he has the right to do so. Quit bashing him and get back on topic. At least Lowing provides some good threads that stay alive with debate and at least he has the balls to stand up for what he believes. Enough with the trashing.
There fixed, more to your liking and all I had to do is change a few letters.Braddock wrote:
...or you could just come out with crazy claims about the Google search engine and the evils of Israel!
Last edited by DeathBecomesYu (2008-04-04 07:18:11)
Schuss has already stated, and he is quite right, that everyone brings their own bias to a debate. One can try and police their bias as much as possible and attempt to be objective but it's like trying to psychoanalyse yourself, it's not going to be 100% successful. I know I have passionate beliefs on certain topics (Irish Nationalism, the cause of the Palestinian people, American foreign policy post 9/11 and so on) and am undoubtedly guilty of bias to some degree in many threads but some of the stuff lowing has come out with in this thread has been off the reserve.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
Braddock, you can honestly say that you are unbiased....come on....You are biased about quite a few things and you show it in your posts just as much as lowing shows his bias in some of his posts. It is funny how Lowing is being made to look like an unfair, biased moron when many of you do the exact same thing.
We all have issues that we are passionate about. We will argue for them and he has the right to do so. Quit bashing him and get back on topic. At least Lowing provides some good threads that stay alive with debate and at least he has the balls to stand up for what he believes. Enough with the trashing.
Did you read his claims about the Google search engine regarding negative stories about Islam? ...He was simply making things up, that is bias to the point of denying reality.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-04-04 07:25:16)
Actually i read it all, but the point is that many people here make things up or skew it so that it fits their agenda, whatever it may be. I know and live with both sides of the Muslim issue. Half of my family is Muslim and my daughter is being raised with some Muslim traditions....no she isn't reading or learning the Koran...she is however learning my wife's language and cultural traditions. No, she doesn't wear a burka nor are we going to force her to be one way or another. She will grow up and have her own choices but we are implementing things on both sides so she understands both sides and wont grow up misunderstanding what many easily misunderstand.Braddock wrote:
Schuss has already stated, and he is quite right, that everyone brings their own bias to a debate. One can try and police their bias as much as possible and attempt to be objective but it's like trying to psychoanalyse yourself, it's not going to be 100% successful. I know I have passionate beliefs on certain topics (Irish Nationalism, the cause of the Palestinian people, American foreign policy post 9/11 and so on) and am undoubtedly guilty of bias to some degree in many threads but some of the stuff lowing has come out with in this thread has been off the reserve.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
Braddock, you can honestly say that you are unbiased....come on....You are biased about quite a few things and you show it in your posts just as much as lowing shows his bias in some of his posts. It is funny how Lowing is being made to look like an unfair, biased moron when many of you do the exact same thing.
We all have issues that we are passionate about. We will argue for them and he has the right to do so. Quit bashing him and get back on topic. At least Lowing provides some good threads that stay alive with debate and at least he has the balls to stand up for what he believes. Enough with the trashing.
Did you read his claims about the Google search engine regarding negative stories about Islam? ...He was simply making things up, that is bias to the point of denying reality.
Now, I can see where Lowing is coming from and understand some of the things he is saying because honestly, the Muslims I know have the same type of worries about radicalism infringing on their rights to practice Islam the way the want to. Slowly, radicalism IS reaching into Muslim communities EVERYWHERE.....so yes, even my family senses that and so do many others. Now, we should all understand the difference here. Lowing should understand this as well or should try to. Islam in itself should not be worrisome, we should worry about the radicalism of Islam. The blame should and does land on the shoulders of Radicals and the leaders who shove it down the throats of the uneducated and kids. Radical Islam is something we should all be weary of and is the biggest threat to peaceful Muslims, more of a threat to them than to non-Muslims.
Radical Islam takes more things in the Koran out of context than anyone and teaches a perverted form of Islam. Yes, Muhammad was no saint and did some very questionable things but as we all know and for the educated on these forums will understand how Islam came about and where its roots were taken from. Anyhow, I can understand both sides and many of you are just as guilty as others here trying to skew your opinions to others. I don't think there are but a few that are truly on the fence on most issues. Most are one side or the other and honestly, that is why this world is messed up....no one can get along.
Last edited by DeathBecomesYu (2008-04-04 07:44:35)
That's a fairly balanced post. Well doneDeathBecomesYu wrote:
Actually i read it all, but the point is that many people here make things up or skew it so that it fits their agenda, whatever it may be. I know and live with both sides of the Muslim issue. Half of my family is Muslim and my daughter is being raised with some Muslim traditions....no she isn't reading or learning the Koran...she is however learning my wife's language and cultural traditions. No, she doesn't wear a burka nor are we going to force her to be one way or another. She will grow up and have her own choices but we are implementing things on both sides so she understands both sides and wont grow up misunderstanding what many easily misunderstand.Braddock wrote:
Schuss has already stated, and he is quite right, that everyone brings their own bias to a debate. One can try and police their bias as much as possible and attempt to be objective but it's like trying to psychoanalyse yourself, it's not going to be 100% successful. I know I have passionate beliefs on certain topics (Irish Nationalism, the cause of the Palestinian people, American foreign policy post 9/11 and so on) and am undoubtedly guilty of bias to some degree in many threads but some of the stuff lowing has come out with in this thread has been off the reserve.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
Braddock, you can honestly say that you are unbiased....come on....You are biased about quite a few things and you show it in your posts just as much as lowing shows his bias in some of his posts. It is funny how Lowing is being made to look like an unfair, biased moron when many of you do the exact same thing.
We all have issues that we are passionate about. We will argue for them and he has the right to do so. Quit bashing him and get back on topic. At least Lowing provides some good threads that stay alive with debate and at least he has the balls to stand up for what he believes. Enough with the trashing.
Did you read his claims about the Google search engine regarding negative stories about Islam? ...He was simply making things up, that is bias to the point of denying reality.
Now, I can see where Lowing is coming from and understand some of the things he is saying because honestly, the Muslims I know have the same type of worries about radicalism infringing on their rights to practice Islam the way the want to. Slowly, radicalism IS reaching into Muslim communities EVERYWHERE.....so yes, even my family senses that and so do many others. Now, we should all understand the difference here. Lowing should understand this as well or should try to. Islam in itself should not be worrisome, we should worry about the radicalism of Islam. The blame should and does land on the shoulders of Radicals and the leaders who shove it down the throats of the uneducated and kids. Radical Islam is something we should all be weary of and is the biggest threat to peaceful Muslims, more of a threat to them than to non-Muslims.
Radical Islam takes more things in the Koran out of context than anyone and teaches a perverted form of Islam. Yes, Muhammad was no saint and did some very questionable things but as we all know and for the educated on these forums will understand how Islam came about and where its roots were taken from. Anyhow, I can understand both sides and many of you are just as guilty as others here trying to skew your opinions to others. I don't think there are but a few that are truly on the fence on most issues. Most are one side or the other and honestly, that is why this world is messed up....no one can get along.
...I'm still more objective though![/joke]
Ya missed my point. I was attacking the defense of Islam by reversing it.Braddock wrote:
So when it's stories about America misbehaving they are generalisations and to be disregarded but when it's about Islam it's a vivid and coherent portrait of the reality of Islam in everyday Western life? ...Riiiiight.lowing wrote:
And by your logic all I have to do to defend America is accuse you of generalizing, and say all you are reading are isolated incedents, and it does not affect you so don't worry about it.Braddock wrote:
A little experiment...
I just typed 'Islam' into Google and I had to go to page 5 of the search results before I got a site raising negative issues about Islam (your beloved http://www.islam-watch.org/).
I typed in 'America' and I only had to go to the third page of search results to find a website about 'the lies of the Bush administration' (www.americablog.com).
By your methodology America is more evil than Islam because it's easier to find evil stories on Google using vague searches.
Lowing, I don't just visit anti-American sites and rush out and construct my opinions based on what I glean from them. I allow myself to be open to various forms of news, left-wing, right-wing and centre... then I apply a big dose of common sense and objectivity and then when I'm done I still hold my hand up and acknowledge that it's still only MY opinion. You claimed that the 'threat' of Islam was somehow proven by how easy it was to find negative stories about Islam on Google... I just proved that idea is preposterous and could be applied to any outlandish idea.
To further test it type in evil mother theresa
No I don't claim anything, there is a whole wide world out there that hold the opinion that Islam is in tolerant and violent even Muslims think so. I am guilty of agreeing with them, I have written no articles condemning Muslims. I am posting articles that fly right into the face of all of your assessments that Islam is harmless, tolerant or peaceful.
Well unfortunatly appeasement does not mean any of those things.sergeriver wrote:
Ok, I'll try buddy.lowing wrote:
As long as you finally admit that they are being appeased, now it is just a matter of arguing the right or wrong of it, isn't it? You go first.sergeriver wrote:
Not my opinion, but the opinion of billions in the world who "appease" Islam because they aren't Islamophobes.
If appeasement means:
-to respect other people beliefs
-not to offend those beliefs
-to make small concessions in order to achieve a better mutual understanding
Then I'm an appeaser and I find this to be Ok.
try these from the dictionary and pick one that suits you, since we now both agree that appeasement is afoot
ap·pease
–verb (used with object), -peased, -peas·ing. 1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.
2. to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.
3. to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.
From your "pro-Islam" sitesBraddock wrote:
I don't think there is any reasoning with lowing on this issue. Just read what he says here about Google, it's complete nonsense. I tested him on it and found five pages of pro-Islam sites before getting to a negative site (his favourite website islam-watch.org). He says 'it's "Funny how articles about how enlightening Islam is are the ones that are hard to find" when in fact you have to trawl through five pages of them before you get to get to a negative one!B.Schuss wrote:
no one said that. It's the conclusions that you draw that trouble us. We simply don't think they're accurate.lowing wrote:
Both points would be well recieved if in fact these stories were far and few between and almost impossible to find with a google search. Unfortunately that is not the case. The fact is all ya gotta do is type the word Islam and there ya go. Funny how articles about how enlightening Islam is are the ones that are hard to find. But yeah, I am making it all up.
Furthermore, you have offered no alternative that would be consistent with current legislation regarding freedom of religion and discrimination.
He does make one true statement though... "But yeah, I am making it all up."
http://islamworld.net/docs/justice.html
http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_libra … ll_muslims
to be honest I was exaggerating to prove a point. but that is ok, you get all the mileage out of it that you can
Last edited by lowing (2008-04-04 19:36:04)
You've won me over lowing. Let's go and wipe them all out and be done with it... OK?lowing wrote:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/01/news/UN-GEN-UN-Free-Speech.php
Nothing more I can say here.
And that affects us how exactly?lowing wrote:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/01/news/UN-GEN-UN-Free-Speech.php
Nothing more I can say here.
Prayer rooms don't advocate one religion over another...which is the intent of separation of church and state. It's freedom OF religion.Turquoise wrote:
Damn it... I had a feeling that was the case. I should've looked it up. Some major airports are private, while others are public. If I'm not mistaken, the one in Greensboro is private (or at least semi-private), so I naturally assumed JFK was as well.CameronPoe wrote:
JFK airport is not private. It is operated by the Port Authority, the directors ultimately being the governors of New York and New Jersey states. It is owned by the city of New York.Turquoise wrote:
I didn't say I agree with the extent of what is being pushed, I'm just saying I support the freedom to express religion in public.
On the other hand, I would agree with you that building prayer rooms is basically appeasement -- including what Cam mentioned about JFK airport. Since JFK is a private institution, they can do whatever they want, but public schools should allow expression -- not forward agendas pushed by radicals.
Well then.. that changes things. While I believe social policy should be limited to the states to decide, I would have to say that I personally see prayer rooms funded by tax dollars as a form of appeasement and a violation of the separation of church and state.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
So, funding prayer rooms is ok with tax money despite the fact that 10% of the population is nonreligious?
No it's not okay, they should use any existing quiet rooms if they feel the need to pray.Turquoise wrote:
So, funding prayer rooms is ok with tax money despite the fact that 10% of the population is nonreligious?