I would like to argue something pretty important to me.

[JPaul]

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.

[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

[JPaul]

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.

[RioDeLeo]

is this playing along with the europe thing?

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.

[JPaul]

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.

[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.

[Snee]

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!!

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.

[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:

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

[Snee]

However, no one seems to be disputing Tralalala's facts here..

You and "RioDe Leo" did that, I thought



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 . 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.

[Rat Faced]

True...

But Rio is anti-Israel

I'm anti-"all the bloody leaders everywhere, shit rises and politicians are the worst"