-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
The problem with google is that it can be used in totally the wrong way. Have an opinion then find evidence to support it.
Unfortunately that can lead one to sites run by people with the same narrow minded agenda as the person doing the research. Re-inforcing the view that they are correct and everyone else is wrong.
One wonders whether some groups exploit this desire to find others who agree with one's views. They may even disguise who they are. e.g. I could set up a Glasgow Rangers Supporters website, then post that we were in fact more sectarian than the Celtic supporters. Which could then be used by Celtic supporters - "look they admit it themselves"
Google is a useful tool, if used with caution.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
good point. but like i said i tend to check more than one site. more often than not even the sites with the best intentions don't have all the facts so you gotta shop around
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
good point. but like i said i tend to check more than one site. more often than not even the sites with the best intentions don't have all the facts so you gotta shop around
Agreed, or as you said earlier use sites which are reputable to get your facts / news. Then form an opinion from them, allied to other information you have.
Rather than just reading interpretations / opinions from other people. If you do read the opinions of others try to be aware of their own background, agenda etc and read them with that in mind.
http://www.britannica.com/ is always good for facts.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
is this playing along with the europe thing? :rolleyes:
i'd hate to side with billy dean, but STFU busyman. doing research is good. when i really want to find something out, i use google. i don't settle with the first link either. i check multiple sources. if it's a news story i'll check bbc.co.uk (i know it's only one source, but i trust it :liberalmedia: )
just because it's not read from a book doesn't make it any less valid you n00b.
I rather think that Busy's point was that google is a
search engine, it finds results depending on what you
ask it. Google has no interest whether the results it gives are either valid or true.
Try this link:
google
The first result provides "scientific evidence" that the moon is made of green cheese, but there are many more too. Your argument appears to be that since it is on google it must be true.
l hate to side with someone who sides with billy dean, but our gepper friend has a point. When l typed in "israeli parliament" l got over a million replies, l wasn't 'guided' to anywhere in particular, or to any point of view. l was looking for a chart, and l found one, l wasn't looking for an opinion. Google, in fact, presented me with more material to study than any other method would have done, it's actually the friend of research, not the enemy.
A favourite method of discussion on here, and many other forums, is the gladiatorial system of post\counter post, l don't think this in itself is a bad idea, in fact it can be quite entertaining. This method often involves heavy Googeling, and opinions can be random depending on what page you land on. A lot of the time you also just want an opposing view to someone you believe is giving a biased account. This is often the case when you are playing the Devil's advocate. But this method often leads to opinions being formed from hearing both sides of an argument instead of well thought out compromises all the time.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
l hate to side with someone who sides with billy dean ....
Quite right too, this is the sort of anti-semitic vitriol he posts at his own site.
"l'd just love to see Israel destroyed, maybe their god will come back and do to them what he has done many times in their history. Israel is a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. The Nazis certainly taught them well, there's nothing like a practical demonstration to get the message across. l dread to think what the place would be like today if six million of them weren't killed, they'd be waging war across the whole Middle East."
It's one thing having different points of view, but that's just bigoted filth.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
I rather think that Busy's point was that google is a
search engine, it finds results depending on what you
ask it. Google has no interest whether the results it gives are either valid or true.
Try this link:
google
The first result provides "scientific evidence" that the moon is made of green cheese, but there are many more too. Your argument appears to be that since it is on google it must be true.
l hate to side with someone who sides with billy dean, but our gepper friend has a point. When l typed in "israeli parliament" l got over a million replies, l wasn't 'guided' to anywhere in particular, or to any point of view. l was looking for a chart, and l found one, l wasn't looking for an opinion. Google, in fact, presented me with more material to study than any other method would have done, it's actually the friend of research, not the enemy.
A favourite method of discussion on here, and many other forums, is the gladiatorial system of post\counter post, l don't think this in itself is a bad idea, in fact it can be quite entertaining. This method often involves heavy Googeling, and opinions can be random depending on what page you land on. A lot of the time you also just want an opposing view to someone you believe is giving a biased account. This is often the case when you are playing the Devil's advocate. But this method often leads to opinions being formed from hearing both sides of an argument instead of well thought out compromises all the time.
I have little doubt that your facts and figures relating to the make-up of the Knesset is accurate. That doesn't hide the fact that the particular site you picked could have been inaccurate and I'll wager you didn't compare it to other sites for verification, though to be fair, tables such as that tend on the whole to be reasonably accurate.
You have admirably illustrated the point about googling for your own point of view. You seek out pages which back up your argument and contradict the opposing view. Again, no checks for accuracy, you simply want to show that the other side is biased because it offends your own point of view. That in itself can hardly be described as a balanced approach.
And what's wrong with bias? You use it as if it is a dirty word, but surely all of us are biased to some extent otherwise there would be no differences of opinion. Biased argument based on truthful and accurate statements is how we promote our point of view, it is untruths and inaccuracies which are the downfall and we've seen these from both sides in this thread.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
Ummmmmm, why have I been caught out with that post of yours?
That's rather obvious.
I never said only 1MP from religiouse party, I meant 1 from the worst party.
The ones I was referring to were Yehadut Hatorah - 5 seats as you put it... Hardly a say eh? They haven't been an influence on anything whilst in parliament. Shas however, do not want to kill all Arabs, and in fact, at one time wee willing to compromise on the disengagement. So, once again, as someone who doesn't live here - YOU are the one without a clue.
Hindsight is a wonderful tool, isn't it?
Talking about right wing religious groups, Shas, who gained 11 seats certainly come under that heading, and they are the foruth largest party.
You can read about them HERE
@SnnY: You are typing everything I wanted to say.... man, that's scary!! :lol:
The same person maybe?
l'll tell you what Rafi, you read this book, and then make serious comments on it if you can. The book is about Jewish fundamentalism and it's effect on the Israeli political system. It might be a bit much for you as there aren't any pictures, but give it a go.
Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel - by Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky
Ah yes, Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky. I had a look on google too, and amazingly, it would appear that these people are/were as politically radical an Israeli (Shahak) and an american (Mezvinsky), could be on the israeli issue without coming off as complete nutters. Anti-israeli is a term that sometimes comes up.
For someone who bases his arguments on the most radical opinions around, and comes off as having absolutely no understanding that Israelis are people too, in a couple of your earlier posts, you are fairly liberal with your negative assessments of tralala's understanding of the situation.
Tralala might be young, and it's possible that he isn't seeing the entire picture. But none of what you have written so far has proven you to have an unbiased, accurate view of the situation.
And, you mentioned ignoring uncomfortable facts on tralala's part, well, the way I see it, you have been doing the same thing, picking and choosing the arguments you think you can respond to.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
However, no one seems to be disputing Tralalala's facts here..
I've pointed out that they're incorrect, and will reinforce this by pointing to Israeli Polls which state such things as:
Quote:
The poll, commissioned by Israel Radio, showed that popular support for the disengagment, which a year ago was running at 60 percent and higher, had dropped to 50 percent.
At the same time, opposition to the plan went up to 40 percent, from a low of 33 percent last year, the radio added.
This is a long way from just the "Religious Nutters" being against it, which is what is implied.. unless the Nutters now make up 40% of the population.
I dont like Polls, as they give information without informing of the demographic of the source...
However there are so many giving similar results, that they cant be ignored.
In addition no one has actually asked what, if any, benefit will be gained by a partial withdrawal. Plus what affect any measurements will have mearly because they were "brokered" by the USA.
Both things have a negative value in the eyes of the Palestinians.
eg:
This Poll was from 2004, and conducted with Middle Eastern Academics..
The Israeli Withdrawal from Gaza and Proposed Annexation of West Bank Settlements
This was also released in 2004, by the Pew Research Centre which is non-partisan. This shows the trust for the USA and attitudes towards Muslims, Jews and Christians in different countries.
The USA may be surprised to know that Christians are more unpopular now than Jews in most Muslim countries...
A Year After Iraq War
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
However, no one seems to be disputing Tralalala's facts here..
You and "RioDe Leo" did that, I thought :blink:
EDit: if disengagement means withdrawing and leaving 21 settlements, and the homes of a lot of people, I can understand why people would be against it, for sentimental reasons if nothing else :unsure: . It's not the same thing as saying that 40% of the israeli population are for taking more Palestinian territory, or that they want to expand, or that they are in favour of the illegal settlers.
Not really sure how this has any bearing on what tralala said about ultra religious people.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
True...
But Rio is anti-Israel
I'm anti-"all the bloody leaders everywhere, shit rises and politicians are the worst" :angry:
:P
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
True...
But Rio is anti-Israel
I'm anti-"all the bloody leaders everywhere, shit rises and politicians are the worst" :angry:
:P
Amen to that.
Anarchy all the way :01:
Nah, maybe not, but some things are screwed up all over the place thanks to dodgy decisions made by politicians, and that includes Israel, Palestine and pretty much the rest of the world.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
However, no one seems to be disputing Tralalala's facts here..
I've pointed out that they're incorrect, and will reinforce this by pointing to Israeli Polls which state such things as:
Quote:
The poll, commissioned by Israel Radio, showed that popular support for the disengagment, which a year ago was running at 60 percent and higher, had dropped to 50 percent.
At the same time, opposition to the plan went up to 40 percent, from a low of 33 percent last year, the radio added.
This is a long way from just the "Religious Nutters" being against it, which is what is implied.. unless the Nutters now make up 40% of the population.
I dont like Polls, as they give information without informing of the demographic of the source...
However there are so many giving similar results, that they cant be ignored.
In addition no one has actually asked what, if any, benefit will be gained by a partial withdrawal. Plus what affect any measurements will have mearly because they were "brokered" by the USA.
Both things have a negative value in the eyes of the Palestinians.
eg:
This Poll was from 2004, and conducted with Middle Eastern Academics..
The Israeli Withdrawal from Gaza and Proposed Annexation of West Bank Settlements
This was also released in 2004, by the Pew Research Centre which is non-partisan. This shows the trust for the USA and attitudes towards Muslims, Jews and Christians in different countries.
The USA may be surprised to know that Christians are more unpopular now than Jews in most Muslim countries...
A Year After Iraq War
apparently 63% of isreal and america are against a disengagement, i don't know why it really matters what the americans think like :ermm:
clicky
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
@RF's post further up the page:
As you said yourself - the poll is "out of date", and is from over a year ago.
Since, many have changed - now it's around 65%-70% (supporting the dusengagement) if I am not mistajen (from one of the major Israeli newspapers about 2-3 months ago... they do one every few months).
I shall explain why this figure has changed:
In the past 2 months, all the settlers have been trying to get the disengagement cancelled, or at least postponed. The thing was, the way they did this pissed many, many Israelis off, which is why more and more people are comign to hate these nutters and want them to get the hell out of Gaza for the sake of Israel.
Settlers have blocked main roads on the country by sitting on them
Settlers have glued keyholes in police stations/army bases
Settlers have punctured the tires of many cars (including army cars/jeeps, MP cars, police cars etc.).
That and many more have pissed us off, and now so many more people want them outta there and as fast as possible.
They try and try, but now it is getting rediculouse, which is why they will eventually lose their already lost battle.
@SnnY: Young and can't see the whole picture... half of that statement is true, the other is false. Can you guess which? :P
Seriously though - I may only be a teenager, but I have had more experience in what is going on in my country that anyone else in this forum, and all over the world for that matter. I think my posts have many info. that is true in them, I do see the big picture, I see it everyday on the news here in Israel (not BBC and not SKY). I see bombing moments after they happen, I see settlers pissing off people, I see it all.
BTW just read the paper - last weekend nearly 100 killed in Iraq by 11 suiciders, a woman suicider killed 5 in Turkey (including an English and an Irish and 3 Turks).... All Muslim.. Now someone tell me that modern terrorism isn't all about Islam....
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
@Gepper:
As I said before - we Israelis don't give a toss about American Jews' thoughts about the situation, they don't have a say.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
Now someone tell me that modern terrorism isn't all about Islam....
How many times FFS. That's just garbage.
3 of the 4 murderers in the UK were apparently banned from the local Mosque.
Please do not blame everyone for the actions of a few.
Not all Catholics supported the actions of the IRA. Not all Muslims support these atrocities. The Imans have been speaking out against these actions and say they are sins.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
I do see the big picture, I see it everyday on the news here in Israel (not BBC and not SKY). I see bombing moments after they happen, I see settlers pissing off people, I see it all.
And as i said earlier, the israeli Media is rated 135th in the world as "Free Press"..
I'll stick with my 27th rated thanks :snooty:
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
i heard some guy on the radio. just a random muslim in the streets of leeds asked about the terrorists and he said "they aren't even muslims, suicide is a sin. these guys are just wannabes"
apparently these kids in london weren't even suicide bombers though. i wouldn't expect them to be as they had a lot to live for. but the timings of the bombs going off suggests they were detonated remotely, as well as some other stuff that's in the papers that i didn't buy.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
I do see the big picture, I see it everyday on the news here in Israel (not BBC and not SKY). I see bombing moments after they happen, I see settlers pissing off people, I see it all.
And as i said earlier, the israeli Media is rated 135th in the world as "Free Press"..
I'll stick with my 27th rated thanks :snooty:
our media is 27th free-est? :ohmy:
who is number 1 and where do the merkins stand?
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Dunno' about the merkins.
But we are 11th :01:
_:)_
the UK was 28th in 2004 :snooty:
and Israel 36th :blink:
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
I must appologise to Tralalala... the Israeli Press are not 135th :(
The US press with regards to Iraq are.
Israel are 44th (with regards to anything outside of the occupied territories)
and 146th with regard to the Occupied Territories.
Again.. Sorry, your press is even worse than i thought on this issue :(
My other rankings remain.. Finland is ranked No 1 in the Free Press rankings..
source
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
I've been misunderstood... no probs there.
What I meant was, that I think all (or, a very very very high percentage) suicides and murders on a nationalist basis are Muslim related.
@RF: Are you telling me the Israeli media are liers? I thought it was rated low because you are not permitted to talk about security stuff freely, and for a good reason. Could you imagine if someone found out lets say how many soldiers there are in the IDF (Which by the way is confidential material, and no one apart from I think the Cheif of Staff and some MP's know about), and spoke it out so people (or, better - enemies such as Hizballah related people) heard it and passed it on... A war would break out immediately (if for instance there are a low ammount of soldiers for instance).
I think that is why it is said that Israels media is not rated so high in Free Press. Not because it's rubbish what they say, but simply as a precaution for Israels security.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
At reporters without borders the index for 2004 said that Israel was 36th/115th wrt israeli/occupied territories :unsure:
You've got 2003, rat'.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Its only with regard to the occupied Territories that the Press is not allowed to report what they wish to.
It is a ranking of Press Freedom, not what they report.
This does not mean they are, or are not, liars.
Just that all the reports are biased by the Government, therefore look elsewhere for the facts... such as Finland, Netherlands, Iceland or Norway.. all ranked No 1
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Hey RF, mistakes happen, no probs, accept your apology :)
Anyway, i think that my previouse post still apllies :)
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
do you hear about when isreali soldiers kill palestinian kids in the streets, be it accidental or not? did you hear about the british reporter who was shot in the head while waving a white flag?
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
It's problematic having people post same time you do isn't it..? :lol:
Anyway, I don't think you will find anymore info. about the Territories anywhere else in the world.
The press can't post what they want for security reasons, and I think you can all understand and accept that.
That is why they are ranked so low in the Freedom thingy table..
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
At reporters without borders the index for 2004 said that Israel was 36th/115th wrt israeli/occupied territories :unsure:
You've got 2003, rat'.
Thanks, i'll try and update my bookmark :lol:
Damn, we dropped a place :lol: :lol:
NEW Source
108 United States of America (in Iraq) 36,00 :rolleyes:
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Yes, we heard al saw al of that on the news.
Just yesterday we saw how an Israeli soldier headbutted a Palestinian demonstrator against the wall being built. He was suspended.
We see all we can see. You cannot see more than you need to here.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
You have admirably illustrated the point about googling for your own point of view. You seek out pages which back up your argument and contradict the opposing view. Again, no checks for accuracy, you simply want to show that the other side is biased because it offends your own point of view. That in itself can hardly be described as a balanced approach.
An admirable job of misrepresentation there Lynx, you are to be commended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
And, you mentioned ignoring uncomfortable facts on tralala's part, well, the way I see it, you have been doing the same thing, picking and choosing the arguments you think you can respond to.
Where are your examples? Or is this just another of your swings in the dark?
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
l'm African.
It explains alot.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
In addition no one has actually asked what, if any, benefit will be gained by a partial withdrawal. Plus what affect any measurements will have mearly because they were "brokered" by the USA.
Both things have a negative value in the eyes of the Palestinians.
As I say, they will never be satisfied.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
@ Lio
"The only devils in the world are those running in our own hearts. That is where the battle should be fought. "
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
In addition no one has actually asked what, if any, benefit will be gained by a partial withdrawal. Plus what affect any measurements will have mearly because they were "brokered" by the USA.
Both things have a negative value in the eyes of the Palestinians.
As I say, they will never be satisfied.
Its because only 5% trust the USA.
On the other hand, 51% trust the Arab League... they've been stabbed in the back by both.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
I've been misunderstood... no probs there.
What I meant was, that I think all (or, a very very very high percentage) suicides and murders on a nationalist basis are Muslim related.
What does " ... on a nationalist basis are Muslim related" mean. Are you saying that Muslim is a nation.
Simply because people claim to be Muslim and claim to be acting on behalf of other Muslims does not make it so.
The British ones were banned from the mosque. The Muslim leaders have denounced the acts. The Muslim people are saying that they don't approve of the Murders and asking everyone else to realise that it is nothing to do with them. In fact that it is against what true Muslims believe
Why do you persist in saying that these acts are Muslim related, when they killed Muslims and when the Muslim people want nothing to do with them.
It's that sort of attitude which causes problems and supports the likes of the BNP in their bigotry. If you feel that way in your country that's a matter for you. However the right thinking people in my country feel entirely differently.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Although Islam was born in Mecca, diversity was its hallmark from the very beginning. The Prophet Muhammad’s earliest followers included Bilal the African slave, Ibn Sailam the Rabbi, Suhaib the Byzantine Roman and Salman the Persian. Today, there are clear differences within the Islamic world between the various axes. There is a struggle for leadership between the oil-rich Arab world and the Persian axis led by Iran; between the Europe-ward tendencies of Turkey and Sharia-dominated Nigeria; the Baul mystics of Bangladesh and the militant Jamaatis of Pakistan. In America and Europe, there are new Islamic variations that are unthinkable in Third World Islam — such as militant Muslim feminists and out-and-proud Gay Muslims (“Queer Jihad”). In short, there is both conflict and cooperation, traditionalism and experimentation, harmony and strife.
Sure sounds like Christianity etc to me..
Lots of factions, and none speak for the rest :rolleyes:
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
You answer the posts you think you have an answer for, whilst ignoring those that stuff you. You repeat the same old shit over and over.
When will the land be returned to the natives of North America, of Africa, of Australia and New Zealand. In fact everywhere else where it was stolen.
Perhaps this time.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
When I said nationalist related I meant that they weren't killing somONE because he/she hated him/her specifically, i meant these killings and suicides were taken out on a basis that the murderers hated the general nation/region (western) they came from, as in they didn't want to kill Arabs or Muslims, they wanted to kill Jews or Westeners.
It's hard to explain for me, I hope you understand.... :)
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Quote:
Although Islam was born in Mecca, diversity was its hallmark from the very beginning. The Prophet Muhammad’s earliest followers included Bilal the African slave, Ibn Sailam the Rabbi, Suhaib the Byzantine Roman and Salman the Persian. Today, there are clear differences within the Islamic world between the various axes. There is a struggle for leadership between the oil-rich Arab world and the Persian axis led by Iran; between the Europe-ward tendencies of Turkey and Sharia-dominated Nigeria; the Baul mystics of Bangladesh and the militant Jamaatis of Pakistan. In America and Europe, there are new Islamic variations that are unthinkable in Third World Islam — such as militant Muslim feminists and out-and-proud Gay Muslims (“Queer Jihad”). In short, there is both conflict and cooperation, traditionalism and experimentation, harmony and strife.
Sure sounds like Christianity etc to me..
Lots of factions, and none speak for the rest :rolleyes:
They don't speak for each other, however others are happy to lump them all together.
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
When I said nationalist related I meant that they weren't killing somONE because he/she hated him/her specifically, i meant these killings and suicides were taken out on a basis that the murderers hated the general nation/region (western) they came from, as in they didn't want to kill Arabs or Muslims, they wanted to kill Jews or Westeners.
It's hard to explain for me, I hope you understand....
they didn't want to kill westerners or christians. they wanted our government to stop supporting america/isreal and GTFO of their business
-
Re: I would like to argue something pretty important to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Sure sounds like Christianity etc to me..
Lots of factions, and none speak for the rest :rolleyes:
They don't speak for each other, however others are happy to lump them all together.
I was agreeing with you :P
Hell, some factions wont even speak to each other.. again, just like Christianity and Juadism :shutup:
