Rant on Islam comments

[latraviata]

Yeah, methinks someone needs to learn how to vet sources. :?

I have to do it fast and in English. I have a ton of sources in Dutch and German, but I am not going to translate everything. If I had the impression that people would actually read instead of questioning the reliability of the sources I might consider it, but no I can't be bothered.

[FundieFarmer]

I have to do it fast and in English. I have a ton of sources in Dutch and German, but I am not going to translate everything. If I had the impression that people would actually read instead of questioning the reliability of the sources I might consider it, but no I can't be bothered.

I did read, and what I read made me question the reliability. That BillionBibles screamed crazy from the get-go. If you want to send the Dutch/German sites, they can be put through Google Website Translator.

Regardless of a website's background or political leaning, it will be questioned if the information it provides is incorrect.

[VelociRapture]

I have to do it fast and in English. I have a ton of sources in Dutch and German, but I am not going to translate everything. If I had the impression that people would actually read instead of questioning the reliability of the sources I might consider it, but no I can't be bothered.

I don't expect you to translate things in that way. It would take a ton of time and effort to do so. If this was a dissertation or thesis or something, then I'd expect it - not so much for an internet debate.

That said, I think most of us question the sources you use because they potentially have a bias to them. To be fair, I'd question it too if people were posting things from MSNBC (and other sources) because they tend to have a very liberal bias at times. In debates like this, if I use a source I try to find one from a place like PBS or NPR, because they tend to remain relatively neutral (to an extent of course) and attempt a fair/balanced explanation.

Your sources could give us some limited insight into why you (or the author of the piece) may believe what you believe - but they may not be the best ones for learning about the specific topics being discussed due to the potential agenda that could be attached to it.

[Terrie]

I did read, and what I read made me question the reliability. That BillionBibles screamed crazy from the get-go. If you want to send the Dutch/German sites, they can be put through Google Website Translator.

Regardless of a website's background or political leaning, it will be questioned if the information it provides is incorrect.

Plus, you've been caught using bad information before. You can poo-poo my source as something you've never heard of, but the numbers I found were repeated in several locations, and I simply went with the one that had the cleanest English.

[Whoosh]

For me, personally, I am not even forming judgments based on the sources most of the time. If I begin to read something and the information is not consistent with the reality that I know from my experiences with "the people that I meet when I'm walking down the street" :wink-kitty: , my judgment is formed. Again, I can only speak based on my own personal life and experience here in the United States of America. However, if people insist on speaking of "Muslims" and "Islam", my experiences are entirely relevant to that conversation and I will judge various sources of information accordingly.

[formergothardite]

I have to do it fast and in English. I have a ton of sources in Dutch and German, but I am not going to translate everything. If I had the impression that people would actually read instead of questioning the reliability of the sources I might consider it, but no I can't be bothered.

I don't expect you to translate and I did read. That is what made me realize you were using a radical, fundamental Christian website that doesn't provide accurate information because it is about fundamental Christian propaganda, not telling the truth.

[latraviata]

I don't expect you to translate things in that way. It would take a ton of time and effort to do so. If this was a dissertation or thesis or something, then I'd expect it - not so much for an internet debate.

That said, I think most of us question the sources you use because they potentially have a bias to them. To be fair, I'd question it too if people were posting things from MSNBC (and other sources) because they tend to have a very liberal bias at times. In debates like this, if I use a source I try to find one from a place like PBS or NPR, because they tend to remain relatively neutral (to an extent of course) and attempt a fair/balanced explanation.

Your sources could give us some limited insight into why you (or the author of the piece) may believe what you believe - but they may not be the best ones for learning about the specific topics being discussed due to the potential agenda that could be attached to it.

I am aware of the mare's nest and the use of wrong words, for instance sharia law is inalienable, which is in Dutch a legal term but doesn't mean exactly what it means in English.

But to say, all my sources are suspect because they are from conservative sources is a way to cut the discussion short. The same can be said the other way around.

[FakePigtails]

I am aware of the mare's nest and the use of wrong words, for instance sharia law is inalienable, which is in Dutch a legal term but doesn't mean exactly what it means in English.

But to say, all my sources are suspect because they are from conservative sources is a way to cut the discussion short. The same can be said the other way around.

It's not because they're conservative, it's because they're batshit crazy.

[PregnantPornStar]

I am aware of the mare's nest and the use of wrong words, for instance sharia law is inalienable, which is in Dutch a legal term but doesn't mean exactly what it means in English.

But to say, all my sources are suspect because they are from conservative sources is a way to cut the discussion short. The same can be said the other way around.

I think this is part of the problem. Most sources are extreme right or left. It doesn't mean they are all right or wrong, but it does show a huge divide and that honest discussions aren't frequently being had. I often find that I have to read all sides of the story to get a full picture of the story. That isn't with this topic alone, but with many things.

ETA: My example is Reza Aslan and Karen Armstrong. I would consider both to be apologists, but that doesn't mean I completely disregard what they have to say. I often disagree with most of it, but it is helpful to see a different perspective. Even if it is an extreme one.

[latraviata]

It's not because they're conservative, it's because they're batshit crazy.

And socialists or progressives are not? A absolute guarantee for an intelligent conversation?

Here is a socialist or rather a former socialist same school as Maher, Harrison, Dawkins, Hitchens, not really popular on the forum:

[bBvideo 560,340:1d326hqn]

[/bBvideo]

[formergothardite]

I am aware of the mare's nest and the use of wrong words, for instance sharia law is inalienable, which is in Dutch a legal term but doesn't mean exactly what it means in English.

But to say, all my sources are suspect because they are from conservative sources is a way to cut the discussion short. The same can be said the other way around.

It isn't because they come for conservative sources, it is because they come from sources with a bias and who have motives and so they can't be trusted to tell the truth. The Billion Bible source is a radical, fundamental Christian group whose goal is to show everyone who isn't a Christian is bad. Would you accept information from them if it was about how atheist are all badl? I'm surprised they don't, but they seem a bit focused on communists and Muslims to get around to spreading propaganda about atheist. Why should we accept information for radical fundamentalist who are clearly biased?

And again, the study that showed 50% of Muslims believed in Sharia law also showed that there was a diverse opinion on what following Sharia law really meant.

[FakePigtails]

And socialists or progressives are not? A absolute guarantee for an intelligent conversation?

Here is a socialist or rather a former socialist same school as Maher, Harrison, Dawkins, Hitchens, not really popular on the forum:

[bBvideo 560,340:ugn3w1gm]

[/bBvideo]

Some are, I'm sure. That's beside the point, unless you have examples from this discussion you'd like to note. The point is, you can't share crap from batshit crazy Bible thumpers and expect what they say to be taken seriously, and sharing it as if it's a reasonable source is not conducive to an intelligent conversation.

[formergothardite]

I really want to know why we should accept information from radical religious fundamentalist who have a bias and a goal to make everyone believe and follow their religion. That makes absolutely no sense.

[Terrie]

I really want to know why we should accept information from radical religious fundamentalist who have a bias and a goal to make everyone believe and follow their religion. That makes absolutely no sense.

Agreed. If we cited an extremist Muslim to support any argument, we would be (rightly) dragged over the coals for it. But extremist anti-Islamic sources are supposed to be a-okay?

[latraviata]

I really want to know why we should accept information from radical religious fundamentalist who have a bias and a goal to make everyone believe and follow their religion. That makes absolutely no sense.

The choice of this particular link was a sloppy one, I glanced at it and thought it was an average islamic one, I see that now.

[nausicaa]

I think this is part of the problem. Most sources are extreme right or left. It doesn't mean they are all right or wrong, but it does show a huge divide and that honest discussions aren't frequently being had. I often find that I have to read all sides of the story to get a full picture of the story. That isn't with this topic alone, but with many things.

ETA: My example is Reza Aslan and Karen Armstrong. I would consider both to be apologists, but that doesn't mean I completely disregard what they have to say. I often disagree with most of it, but it is helpful to see a different perspective. Even if it is an extreme one.

I agree that most sources go through some sort of filter. However, there is a difference between using a source that skews right or left, but has been fact checked and is generally reputable, versus using a website that is clearly not only biased but not following any basic rules of journalism.

For example, if somebody were to cite the Wall Street Journal, the Middle East Forum, or even the Weekly Standard to support her side, I wouldn't jump all over her and tell her that the sources were batshit crazy just because they disagreed with my points. Those publications do follow a level of fact checking and accountability.

[latraviata]

alfredvierling.com/?p=3438

In Dutch and reliable, copy and paste in Google, it reads like a Chinese manual translated into English, but the message is clear.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

I really want to know why we should accept information from radical religious fundamentalist who have a bias and a goal to make everyone believe and follow their religion. That makes absolutely no sense.

Especially since she wants to demonstrate how dangerously and irredeemably fundamentalist another faith is.

[formergothardite]

The choice of this particular link was a sloppy one, I glanced at it and thought it was an average islamic one, I see that now.

The thing is, you were trying to disprove the idea that the 50 % of Muslims who say they believe in Sharia law have a diverse opinion on the subject of what that really means. The study that showed the 50 % also showed a diverse opinion on it. So I don't really get why you would want to accept the part of that study that says 50 % of Muslims believe in Sharia law without accepting the other part of that study that says:

the survey reveals divergent opinions about the precise application of Islamic law.

While many say there is only one true interpretation, substantial percentages in most countries either say there are multiple interpretations or say they do not know.

An individual’s degree of religious commitment appears to influence views on interpreting sharia

Just like it would be ridiculous for me to claim all Christians who believe in biblical law believe non-Christians should be killed, it is ridiculous to claim all Muslims who believe Sharia law all believe the exact same extreme version of it.

[PregnantPornStar]

Here we have ex-Muslims who are being persecuted...

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34357047

And here we have limited speech to protect those who might be offended. Offended by someone speaking against violence.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... ie-warwick

[FakePigtails]

alfredvierling.com/?p=3438

In Dutch and reliable, copy and paste in Google, it reads like a Chinese manual translated into English, but the message is clear.

Reliable, really?

alfredvierling.com/?p=4303

"On Muslim Crime, Genetics and the Rape of Europe"

Firstly, and most obviously, I am troubled at the perpetration of Islamic murder and lawlessness in Europe. Secondly, media representations of these events refuse to disclose that they are a product of disastrous immigration and foreign policies — policies which have been demonstrably influenced by Jews.

...

Fourthly, the shootings provide opportunities for Jews to amplify their victimhood narrative, and to regurgitate tired old ‘lessons’ to Europe. These lessons are then tied in to further Jewish demands, which include the restriction of arms and free speech. Finally, I am considerably irritated by the way in which these events have been used as a means for Jews to present themselves as the perennial victims of terrorism, when they have a rich history of engaging in it themselves.

...

Another great myth that we are force-fed is that these criminals are somehow not ‘real’ Muslims. This is a common ploy, and one pioneered to a great extent by Jews.

WTF are you reading?!?! And how the hell do you consider this crap reasonable?

[latraviata]

Especially since she wants to demonstrate how dangerously and irredeemably fundamentalist another faith is.

Okay, I have already been called in the basilica, I confessed, I made a terrible and unforgivable mistake.

What's next, a public execution? With a dolabra or some other form of verbera? Or just ignominia?

[latraviata]

Reliable, really?

alfredvierling.com/?p=4303

WTF are you reading?!?! And how the hell do you consider this crap reasonable?

Try again.

[FakePigtails]

Try again.

Seriously, you think a site that posts vile stuff like that and

This is all evidence indeed that the injection of vast numbers of Muslims into the European bloodstream has proved toxic. As Sennels puts it, we have imported a self-perpetuating population which has “limited social skills and understanding, limited ability to manage education and work procedures. … The negative cognitive consequences also influence the executive functions. The impairment of concentration and emotional control most often leads to anti-social behavior.â€

is a decent source????

[FakePigtails]

Holy shit, you can't make this stuff up: alfredvierling.com/?p=4134 "Israel’s involvement in the Bijlmer and MH-370 and MH-17 crashes to be revealed by The Dutch Government?"