QuoteAs new details about the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings came to light, confusion on Twitter led some users to mistake Chechnya for the Czech Republic.
The names of the distinct regions trended on the social network after two suspects in the bombings, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, were described by family and law enforcement as "brothers from a Russian region near Chechnya."
In response, Twitter users made crude "infographics" and shamed misinformed tweets, in an apparent effort to correct the Chechnya-Czech Republic error.
However, the error was couched in a broader misperception, as some media used the suspects' purported origins to make suggestions about their alleged motivations. On Friday, Fox News reported on the "ties between Islamic extremist groups and Chechnya," postulating that the suspects could be motivated by "Islamic radicalism."
In interviews Friday, Ruslan Tsarni, uncle of the suspects, said that the Tsarnaev brothers are not Chechen, had never been in Chechnya and insisted that the bombings had nothing to do with Chechnya or Islam, the predominant religion in the region.
In a statement posted Friday to his Instagram feed, Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov suggested the bombing suspects were products of an American upbringing.
"It is necessary to seek the roots of evil in America," Kadyrov wrote, according to a translation from Foreign Policy.
Chechnya, a region in North Caucasus, has been home to a violent and long-running campaign by rebels to break away from Russia.
The Czech Republic is a central European country bordered by Germany, Austria, Poland and Slovakia.
UPDATE: The embassy of the Czech Republic in Washington, D.C., has issued a statement about this confusion.
"As more information on the origin of the alleged perpetrators is coming to light, I am concerned to note in the social media a most unfortunate misunderstanding in this respect," wrote Czech Ambassador Petr Gandalovič. "The Czech Republic and Chechnya are two very different entities - the Czech Republic is a Central European country; Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation."
This is NOT an Onion article. :lol:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/chechnya-czech-republic-twitter_n_3116773.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7OSrbN3.png&hash=4e541298c2afc08c96927c78744ec19d741f51e1)
What in the fuck is that?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 20, 2013, 07:58:17 AM
What in the fuck is that?
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?466607-Polandball-inspired-comics
Quote from: Martinus on April 20, 2013, 07:49:04 AM
This is NOT an Onion article. :lol:
Irrelevant places are irrelevant. Just like twitter.
Martinus is getting as bad as Timmay about reading existing threads.
I do not get the retarded desire to try to blame singular acts by individuals on entire ethnic groups and nationalities. We have so many fucking morons in this country it is ridiculous. Any member of Congress said something stupid in this regard yet? We already had that one idiot claiming this was evidence we needed to toughen up our border with Mexico shortly after this happened.
Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2013, 11:21:08 AM
Any member of Congress said something stupid in this regard yet? We already had that one idiot claiming this was evidence we needed to toughen up our border with Mexico shortly after this happened.
So far, the Usual Suspects have only said he should be tried as an enemy combatant, and said hurray that he wasn't read his Miranda rights.
Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2013, 11:21:08 AM
I do not get the retarded desire to try to blame singular acts by individuals on entire ethnic groups and nationalities. We have so many fucking morons in this country it is ridiculous. Any member of Congress said something stupid in this regard yet? We already had that one idiot claiming this was evidence we needed to toughen up our border with Mexico shortly after this happened.
Boy you're just looking to get pissed off about it, aren't you? :lol:
Ah, the old racial profiling debate again.
I'm unaware of anyone saying that all Chechens should be blamed for the bombing. That would be ludicrous.
But it makes good sense to me to use Muslim as a risk factor when assessing immigration or visa applications.
Quote from: Syt on April 20, 2013, 08:05:16 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 20, 2013, 07:58:17 AM
What in the fuck is that?
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?466607-Polandball-inspired-comics
:lmfao:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2013, 12:32:34 PM
Ah, the old racial profiling debate again.
I'm unaware of anyone saying that all Chechens should be blamed for the bombing. That would be ludicrous.
But it makes good sense to me to use Muslim as a risk factor when assessing immigration or visa applications.
:lol: That's like saying that you're against torture, but enhanced interrogation techniques make good sense.
Quote from: DGuller on April 20, 2013, 12:39:03 PM
:lol: That's like saying that you're against torture, but enhanced interrogation techniques make good sense.
Except for the part that's not like saying I'm against torture, but enhanced interrogation makes good sense, which is all of it.
Immigration is a privilege, ,not a right. Visiting the country or attending school here is a privilege, not a right. When we decide who we want to grant this privilege to we take into account any risk they might present.
Analyzing risk factors = profiling. Don't weasel out by using euphemisms.
Quote from: DGuller on April 20, 2013, 01:10:15 PM
Analyzing risk factors = profiling. Don't weasel out by using euphemisms.
You know, you have this disturbing tendency to heap invective when you're dead wrong. And you never once have admitted you were wrong to do so.
Reread my post you moron. I didn't say I was opposed to racial profiling. I'm all for racial profiling.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2013, 01:13:10 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 20, 2013, 01:10:15 PM
Analyzing risk factors = profiling. Don't weasel out by using euphemisms.
You know, you have this disturbing tendency to heap invective when you're dead wrong. And you never once have admitted you were wrong to do so.
Reread my post you moron. I didn't say I was opposed to racial profiling. I'm all for racial profiling.
Ok, I misinterpreted your post, which IMO was written a little unclearly. But most of the time, I heap invective when debating against GOPtards, so I don't do it only when I'm dead wrong.
:yeahright: Did your father used to beat you whenever you conceded a point or apologized?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2013, 01:57:36 PM
:yeahright: Did your father used to beat you whenever you conceded a point or apologized?
I misinterpreted your post because you didn't express your point clearly. Then you didn't take the opportunity to correct my misinterpretation first time around, and reinforced my misunderstanding by another unclear post that could be interpreted as a defense of the argument I attributed to you. I admitted my misinterpretation of your original point when you finally clarified your point.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2013, 12:32:34 PM
But it makes good sense to me to use Muslim as a risk factor when assessing immigration or visa applications.
Sounds pretty straightforward to me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2013, 12:32:34 PM
But it makes good sense to me to use Muslim as a risk factor when assessing immigration or visa applications.
1. These guys came from Russia.
2. They lived in the US for 10 years.
3. They did not convert to Islam until they were in the US.
4. The percentage risk of a muslim immigrant committing a terrorist attack is minuscule.
Each of these four reasons means you are a fucking retard.
Though it's funny that a Korean chronically unemployed loser like you seems to be the constant champion for randian jingoism.
Gay Polish Lawyer BEAST MODE
They're ethnic Chechens, so I think they were muslim all along.
Quote from: Martinus on April 20, 2013, 02:28:20 PM
1. These guys came from Russia.
2. They lived in the US for 10 years.
3. They did not convert to Islam until they were in the US.
4. The percentage risk of a muslim immigrant committing a terrorist attack is minuscule.
Each of these four reasons means you are a fucking retard.
Though it's funny that a Korean chronically unemployed loser like you seems to be the constant champion for randian jingoism.
1. I think Khazakstan. But so?
2. So? The Somali immigrants to Minnesota who joined Shabab had been in the US about that long. The imam we hellfired in Yemen was born in the US, as was the Army imam who killed a bunch of GIs. The guys who tried to blow up Ft. Dix and the guys who tried to car bomb Times Square had been living in the US for a while.
3. I missed that. Why would a Chechen, who are Muslim to begin with, need to convert?
4. So?
English is not your first language, so I can't hold against you your misuse of jingo. It means someone who is eager for war. Xenophobe might work better. But of course that means an irrational fear of foreigners, and I don't have a fear, irrational or otherwise of, for example, Norwegians. And it also begs the question of why believing Muslim is a risk factor constitutes an irrational fear.
Quote from: derspiess on April 20, 2013, 12:16:19 PM
Boy you're just looking to get pissed off about it, aren't you? :lol:
Nah I was already hot about it. Stupid twitter.
Your own fault for using it.
If you're serious about risk and security you obviously use racial/ethnic/religious/political/etc profiling.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2013, 02:50:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 20, 2013, 02:28:20 PM
1. These guys came from Russia.
2. They lived in the US for 10 years.
3. They did not convert to Islam until they were in the US.
4. The percentage risk of a muslim immigrant committing a terrorist attack is minuscule.
Each of these four reasons means you are a fucking retard.
Though it's funny that a Korean chronically unemployed loser like you seems to be the constant champion for randian jingoism.
1. I think Khazakstan. But so?
2. So? The Somali immigrants to Minnesota who joined Shabab had been in the US about that long. The imam we hellfired in Yemen was born in the US, as was the Army imam who killed a bunch of GIs. The guys who tried to blow up Ft. Dix and the guys who tried to car bomb Times Square had been living in the US for a while.
3. I missed that. Why would a Chechen, who are Muslim to begin with, need to convert?
4. So?
English is not your first language, so I can't hold against you your misuse of jingo. It means someone who is eager for war. Xenophobe might work better. But of course that means an irrational fear of foreigners, and I don't have a fear, irrational or otherwise of, for example, Norwegians. And it also begs the question of why believing Muslim is a risk factor constitutes an irrational fear.
Xenophobe doesn't work, but the word "bigot" does. Use that one instead :)
Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2013, 08:21:27 PM
Xenophobe doesn't work, but the word "bigot" does. Use that one instead :)
Nope. Try again. Try harder.
Quote from: derspiess on April 20, 2013, 02:40:53 PM
They're ethnic Chechens, so I think they were muslim all along.
Little known facts-until the 19th Century majority of Chechens were pagan. Sad to think that only two centuries the most attractive ethnicity in the world belonged to a sexually liberated religion and are now almost universally fanatically Muslim.
Quote from: Neil on April 20, 2013, 08:59:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2013, 08:21:27 PM
Xenophobe doesn't work, but the word "bigot" does. Use that one instead :)
Nope. Try again. Try harder.
Okay smart guy, which one would you like?
Quote from: Queequeg on April 20, 2013, 09:16:38 PM
the most attractive ethnicity in the world
I guess QQ is one of those mistaking Chechens for Czechs. :hmm:
Quote from: Queequeg on April 20, 2013, 09:16:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 20, 2013, 02:40:53 PM
They're ethnic Chechens, so I think they were muslim all along.
Little known facts-until the 19th Century majority of Chechens were pagan. Sad to think that only two centuries the most attractive ethnicity in the world belonged to a sexually liberated religion and are now almost universally fanatically Muslim.
In what way were they sexually liberated?
I don't know all of the details of the pre-19th Century Chechen religion. It was a pretty weird mix of native practices, Christianity, and a half-dozen different schools of Islam. But honestly, just about anything is better than the pop-Salafism that Kadyrov is pumping out, or the real-Salafism preached by the insurgents.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 20, 2013, 09:16:38 PM
the most attractive ethnicity in the world
Link, please.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 20, 2013, 09:36:03 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 20, 2013, 09:16:38 PM
the most attractive ethnicity in the world
Link, please.
Not going to have that much luck. Most pics are of them in hijabs or with a dozen bullet wounds.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 20, 2013, 09:37:38 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 20, 2013, 09:36:03 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 20, 2013, 09:16:38 PM
the most attractive ethnicity in the world
Link, please.
Not going to have that much luck. Most pics are of them in hijabs or with a dozen bullet wounds.
Fine, I'll settle for an explanation how a bunch of brown dirt farmers in the armpit of southwest Asia are "the most attractive ethnicity in the world".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 20, 2013, 09:42:52 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 20, 2013, 09:37:38 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 20, 2013, 09:36:03 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 20, 2013, 09:16:38 PM
the most attractive ethnicity in the world
Link, please.
Not going to have that much luck. Most pics are of them in hijabs or with a dozen bullet wounds.
Fine, I'll settle for an explanation how a bunch of brown dirt farmers in the armpit of southwest Asia are "the most attractive ethnicity in the world".
he's hard up and any ethnicity he's talking about at any given moment is "the most attractive ethnicity in the world" :P
That's kind of the point. It's Eurasia's hilly truck stop. Every people in history has made their way through the Caucasus. And there's also a ton of diversity within the mountains themselves because of the impediments to travel preventing homogenization.
Why do you think a rocky region without natural resources became Muslim anyway? Slaves. The Ottomans wanted Chechen female slaves.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 20, 2013, 09:42:52 PM
Fine, I'll settle for an explanation how a bunch of brown dirt farmers in the armpit of southwest Asia are "the most attractive ethnicity in the world".
Dude it's Spellus.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 20, 2013, 09:45:14 PM
Why do you think a rocky region without natural resources became Muslim anyway? Slaves. The Ottomans wanted Chechen female slaves.
so they took all the pretty ones away and left the dregs behind. not the best point to make aout hottness :D
Well, I never wanted to fuck one and after a cursory search of my pornography library, I don't see any. So you're wrong.
But hey, if you want to fuck dirty cave people, knock yourself out, Throg. Fire bad.
There's only 1.3 million of them. How many women are in your porn inventory?
I feel as though I am soon going to regret having asked that.
lol love the new sig
God damn it.
Not exactly what you both were after, but an interesting photo essay about young women in Chechnya (and some of the screwed up elements of it's culture) :
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2012/04/young_women_in_chechnya.html (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2012/04/young_women_in_chechnya.html)
Quote from: Queequeg on April 20, 2013, 09:35:35 PM
I don't know all of the details of the pre-19th Century Chechen religion. It was a pretty weird mix of native practices, Christianity, and a half-dozen different schools of Islam. But honestly, just about anything is better than the pop-Salafism that Kadyrov is pumping out, or the real-Salafism preached by the insurgents.
Yeah, so I'll take that as retraction.
Now is Spellus's defense there was a lot freakshows in the US that showed "Circassian Beauties", but they weren't actually from the Caucuses. They were just chicks with big afros. I think it had it's origin in pornographic stories involving Muslim harems.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2013, 10:08:05 PM
Now is Spellus's defense there was a lot freakshows in the US that showed "Circassian Beauties", but they weren't actually from the Caucuses. They were just chicks with big afros. I think it had it's origin in pornographic stories involving Muslim harems.
Depends on where the afros were. :perv:
They could have had them on their knuckles, but it still didn't actually make them Circassian. Incidentally the idea that Circassians were noticeably beautiful informed the idea of a Caucasian race. Back in the 19th century (I think), white Europeans were called "Caucasian" because some race scientists thought they were the purest example of European beauty.
Aint nothing wrong with those cave dwellers
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg251.imageshack.us%2Fimg251%2F3131%2Fghazal2.jpg&hash=b92a2bc41a23db01ff2252e40ccd9dd7752e62ed)
I genuinely have no idea what you talking about.
The dudes who did the bombing look pretty Mideastern though. Not "pure white European".
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 20, 2013, 10:38:59 PM
The dudes who did the bombing look pretty Mideastern though. Not "pure white European".
They're not really either. The Caucasus are extremely diverse genetically.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2013, 08:21:27 PM
Xenophobe doesn't work, but the word "bigot" does. Use that one instead :)
That one does work because many people use the word bigot to describe a person who believes different groups of people have different group characteristics. The problem with this usage of bigot, which does work, is that it's meaningless.
I would say that acting on such beliefs is where it gets sketchy. There is no doubt that profiling is effective in measurable terms, useful liberal lies notwithstanding. The problem is that the damage done to social fabric by employing profiling is immeasurable but huge, which in the end makes its utility dubious at best.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 20, 2013, 09:45:14 PM
That's kind of the point. It's Eurasia's hilly truck stop. Every people in history has made their way through the Caucasus. And there's also a ton of diversity within the mountains themselves because of the impediments to travel preventing homogenization.
So what now? Are they a diverse race of crossbreeds or inbred hicks?
Until about 1100 the second in many different diverse areas (meany many different pockets of different hicks) followed by integration in to incredibly diverse Caucasian makeup.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2013, 10:27:17 PM
They could have had them on their knuckles, but it still didn't actually make them Circassian. Incidentally the idea that Circassians were noticeably beautiful informed the idea of a Caucasian race. Back in the 19th century (I think), white Europeans were called "Caucasian" because some race scientists thought they were the purest example of European beauty.
Really? I thought this was because it was thought that most of the white people migrations originated around Caucasus.
In what time period? It wasn't a refugium during the last glacial maximum.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2013, 11:23:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2013, 08:21:27 PM
Xenophobe doesn't work, but the word "bigot" does. Use that one instead :)
That one does work because many people use the word bigot to describe a person who believes different groups of people have different group characteristics. The problem with this usage of bigot, which does work, is that it's meaningless.
Why meaningless?
Because different groups of people do have different characteristics.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2013, 02:27:06 AM
Because different groups of people do have different characteristics.
I'm not seeing your point here.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2013, 01:36:11 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2013, 10:27:17 PM
They could have had them on their knuckles, but it still didn't actually make them Circassian. Incidentally the idea that Circassians were noticeably beautiful informed the idea of a Caucasian race. Back in the 19th century (I think), white Europeans were called "Caucasian" because some race scientists thought they were the purest example of European beauty.
Really? I thought this was because it was thought that most of the white people migrations originated around Caucasus.
Yes. That's not mutually exclusive to what I said. They the most beautiful because they were the most pure, they were the most pure because that's where whites originally came from.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2013, 02:32:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2013, 01:36:11 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2013, 10:27:17 PM
They could have had them on their knuckles, but it still didn't actually make them Circassian. Incidentally the idea that Circassians were noticeably beautiful informed the idea of a Caucasian race. Back in the 19th century (I think), white Europeans were called "Caucasian" because some race scientists thought they were the purest example of European beauty.
Really? I thought this was because it was thought that most of the white people migrations originated around Caucasus.
Yes. That's not mutually exclusive to what I said. They the most beautiful because they were the most pure, they were the most pure because that's where whites originally came from.
That sounds a bit circular. Not to mention that people of pure ethnic heritage tend to be uglier than mixed ethnicites.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2013, 02:28:14 AM
I'm not seeing your point here.
My point is that you're trying to apply a pejorative to a simple observation of fact. A person who observes a number of Scotsmen and comes to the conclusion that there are a lot of red-headed Scotsman is not guilty of a moral failing. Yet you would have us call that person a bigot. Thus the way you use the word bigot robs it of all its moral meaning.
Quotepejorative
Holy fuck. Had to google that one. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2013, 02:39:52 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2013, 02:28:14 AM
I'm not seeing your point here.
My point is that you're trying to apply a pejorative to a simple observation of fact. A person who observes a number of Scotsmen and comes to the conclusion that there are a lot of red-headed Scotsman is not guilty of a moral failing. Yet you would have us call that person a bigot. Thus the way you use the word bigot robs it of all its moral meaning.
Of course not. But you have not observed "a number of Scotsmen". You have observed a few red headed people, some of which happened to be Scotsmen and concluded that a lot of Scotsmen are red headed.
That's why rather than calling you a bigot, I called you a fucking retard - which is more appropriate, since you seem to fail to grasp basic principles of logic and statistics.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2013, 02:39:52 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2013, 02:28:14 AM
I'm not seeing your point here.
My point is that you're trying to apply a pejorative to a simple observation of fact. A person who observes a number of Scotsmen and comes to the conclusion that there are a lot of red-headed Scotsman is not guilty of a moral failing. Yet you would have us call that person a bigot. Thus the way you use the word bigot robs it of all its moral meaning.
But this isn't about observing some mundane fact, it's singling people out for some persecutor action based on a perceived difference.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2013, 02:39:06 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2013, 02:32:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2013, 01:36:11 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2013, 10:27:17 PM
They could have had them on their knuckles, but it still didn't actually make them Circassian. Incidentally the idea that Circassians were noticeably beautiful informed the idea of a Caucasian race. Back in the 19th century (I think), white Europeans were called "Caucasian" because some race scientists thought they were the purest example of European beauty.
Really? I thought this was because it was thought that most of the white people migrations originated around Caucasus.
Yes. That's not mutually exclusive to what I said. They the most beautiful because they were the most pure, they were the most pure because that's where whites originally came from.
That sounds a bit circular. Not to mention that people of pure ethnic heritage tend to be uglier than mixed ethnicites.
Look, I didn't make it up. Race scientists weren't the clearest of thinkers. Besides, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2013, 02:43:59 AM
Of course not. But you have not observed "a number of Scotsmen". You have observed a few red headed people, some of which happened to be Scotsmen and concluded that a lot of Scotsmen are red headed.
That's why rather than calling you a bigot, I called you a fucking retard - which is more appropriate, since you seem to fail to grasp basic principles of logic and statistics.
There are two basic problems with you calling me a retard. One is that you insult people like breathing. When you do it all the time, it loses any significance. It becomes background noise.
The second, more serious problem is that you have amply demonstrated, time and again, that you are one of the stupidest posters on Languish. For your judgement to carry any weight you would first have to have some credibility. You have none.
I have not observed a number of redheads and mistakenly concluded they were Scotsmen. I've observed a number of Muslims killing innocent civilians.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2013, 02:51:16 AM
But this isn't about observing some mundane fact, it's singling people out for some persecutor action based on a perceived difference.
I'm not proposing putting people in jail or fining them for the crime of being Chechen or Muslim. I'm proposing we evaluate potential risks when assessing immigration and visa applications.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2013, 03:00:54 AM
The second, more serious problem is that you have amply demonstrated, time and again, that you are one of the stupidest posters on Languish. For your judgement to carry any weight you would first have to have some credibility. You have none.
This must be Yi's version of frothing mad. :o
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2013, 03:00:54 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2013, 02:43:59 AM
Of course not. But you have not observed "a number of Scotsmen". You have observed a few red headed people, some of which happened to be Scotsmen and concluded that a lot of Scotsmen are red headed.
That's why rather than calling you a bigot, I called you a fucking retard - which is more appropriate, since you seem to fail to grasp basic principles of logic and statistics.
There are two basic problems with you calling me a retard. One is that you insult people like breathing. When you do it all the time, it loses any significance. It becomes background noise.
The second, more serious problem is that you have amply demonstrated, time and again, that you are one of the stupidest posters on Languish. For your judgement to carry any weight you would first have to have some credibility. You have none.
I have not observed a number of redheads and mistakenly concluded they were Scotsmen. I've observed a number of Muslims killing innocent civilians.
Yi, that is a most articulate, stylish, and gentlemanly thrashing. If I could give a Before commendation for thrashing with style, I would.
bien fait
Brain fart?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2013, 03:02:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2013, 02:51:16 AM
But this isn't about observing some mundane fact, it's singling people out for some persecutor action based on a perceived difference.
I'm not proposing putting people in jail or fining them for the crime of being Chechen or Muslim. I'm proposing we evaluate potential risks when assessing immigration and visa applications.
It's still using state powers against them because of an ethnic background. I'm curious, where do you draw the line at bigotry?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 20, 2013, 09:42:52 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 20, 2013, 09:37:38 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 20, 2013, 09:36:03 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 20, 2013, 09:16:38 PM
the most attractive ethnicity in the world
Link, please.
Not going to have that much luck. Most pics are of them in hijabs or with a dozen bullet wounds.
Fine, I'll settle for an explanation how a bunch of brown dirt farmers in the armpit of southwest Asia are "the most attractive ethnicity in the world".
A quick perusal of google images reveals a distinct lack of pigmentation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2013, 03:00:54 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2013, 02:43:59 AM
Of course not. But you have not observed "a number of Scotsmen". You have observed a few red headed people, some of which happened to be Scotsmen and concluded that a lot of Scotsmen are red headed.
That's why rather than calling you a bigot, I called you a fucking retard - which is more appropriate, since you seem to fail to grasp basic principles of logic and statistics.
There are two basic problems with you calling me a retard. One is that you insult people like breathing. When you do it all the time, it loses any significance. It becomes background noise.
The second, more serious problem is that you have amply demonstrated, time and again, that you are one of the stupidest posters on Languish. For your judgement to carry any weight you would first have to have some credibility. You have none.
I have not observed a number of redheads and mistakenly concluded they were Scotsmen. I've observed a number of Muslims killing innocent civilians.
I have observed both muslims and non-muslims killing innocent people on the US soil. In fact, over the last year, what could pass for mass murder attacks resulted in 2 deaths by muslims and several dozens by non-muslims. But even if all of these were perpetrated by muslims, it still makes the risk of an average muslim perform such attack as miniscule in practice as it is for a non-muslim to perform such attack.
Ergo, you are still a retard.
As for the rest of your post, well, I will take our relative position in professional life as a good measure as to which one of us is a loser and which is not. So far I have not been reduced to being an unemployed piece of shit living for free at my parents' home at any point of my adult life, so I am still ahead of you, loser.
I didn't think you have ever been to the US.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2013, 06:33:47 AM
I didn't think you have ever been to the US.
I don't think Yi has "observed muslims killing innocents" outside of tv either.
Quote from: 11B4V on April 20, 2013, 10:31:12 PM
Aint nothing wrong with those cave dwellers
You can always find a polished turd in a pile.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2013, 06:45:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2013, 06:33:47 AM
I didn't think you have ever been to the US.
I don't think Yi has "observed muslims killing innocents" outside of tv either.
So? We were all pretty much watching it on live TV on 9/11.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2013, 06:45:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2013, 06:33:47 AM
I didn't think you have ever been to the US.
I don't think Yi has "observed muslims killing innocents" outside of tv either.
I think Raz's statement was pertaining to the question of whether you or Yi is the bigger loser. You're in Poland; Yi's not.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2013, 06:26:47 AM
I have observed both muslims and non-muslims killing innocent people on the US soil. In fact, over the last year, what could pass for mass murder attacks resulted in 2 deaths by muslims and several dozens by non-muslims. But even if all of these were perpetrated by muslims, it still makes the risk of an average muslim perform such attack as miniscule in practice as it is for a non-muslim to perform such attack.
Ergo, you are still a retard.
And look what the killings by non-Muslims has led to: an attempt to strengthen gun background checks. I.e. an attempt to limit gun sales based on specific risk factors. Only a miniscule percentage of emotionally troubled people commit gun violence. Should we therefore ignore it as a risk factor?
QuoteAs for the rest of your post, well, I will take our relative position in professional life as a good measure as to which one of us is a loser and which is not. So far I have not been reduced to being an unemployed piece of shit living for free at my parents' home at any point of my adult life, so I am still ahead of you, loser.
There is no doubt that I am the loser and you are the winner. But that's not what we were talking about, which is who is the retard. And unfortunately for you that doesn't correlate one for one with income. Most people here seem to have a low opinion of your intellect based on of your posting history. Don't take my word for it; feel free to ask around. There must be some people here who's word and judgement you trust.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2013, 04:24:22 AM
It's still using state powers against them because of an ethnic background. I'm curious, where do you draw the line at bigotry?
I use bigot to describe a person who has ill will towards another group. I.e, I wish all Amish would die.
I use prejudiced to describe a person who cannot or will not incorporate new evidence into their model of group behavior.
Desire for increased surveillance because of blanket suspicion doesn't indicate ill will? It would seem so to me.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2013, 02:21:30 PM
Desire for increased surveillance because of blanket suspicion doesn't indicate ill will? It would seem so to me.
Not the way I see it. I can conceive of a world in which Muslims all say "this terrorism thing was a bad idea, let's all drop it." When behavior changes, counter-measures would change.
So you harbor no ill will toward people who endorse terrorist behavior? Yi, this sounds suspiciously like "it's not bigoted, because it's justified". Most people who are bigots believe they are justified.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2013, 02:40:01 PM
So you harbor no ill will toward people who endorse terrorist behavior? Yi, this sounds suspiciously like "it's not bigoted, because it's justified". Most people who are bigots believe they are justified.
Raz, you're spazzing out just a tiny bit. How did you possibly infer that I harbor no ill will towards people who endorse terrorist behavior? I harbor a great deal of ill will towards people who endorse terrorist behavior.
I harbor no ill towards the general Muslim population; I wish them long life and prosperity. But I still believe that the religion correlates with violence.
I inferred it by you saying that you bear no ill-will yet indicating that Muslims have yet to say "this terrorism thing was a bad idea, let's all drop it". Hence the contradiction. I'm honestly a thrown off by this. Collective punishment isn't normally your thing. Should all ethnic groups be profiled? For instance, I imagine some ethnic group has a higher rate of tax evasion then others. Should the IRS audit those people more carefully?
Raz insists that we all be politically correct even if it kills us. Unless it involves rightwingers. Gotta watch them like hawks.
Quote from: derspiess on April 21, 2013, 03:23:51 PM
Raz insists that we all be politically correct even if it kills us. Unless it involves rightwingers. Gotta watch them like hawks.
Muslim fundamentalists are right wingers. And I insist on equal protection under the law.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2013, 02:46:26 PM
I harbor no ill towards the general Muslim population; I wish them long life and prosperity. But I still believe that the religion correlates with violence.
I find myself agreeing less with Yi as I get older after opening my eyes to the daily facefucking we suffer from his 1%, but I do agree that there is an intrinsic element of violence that specifically increases Islamic shareholder value.
While I'm sure the world's majority of Mooselimbs peacefully endorse the concept that everybody else eventually submit to Allah's will, PBUH, there does exists a fundamental correlation of violence with Islamitude that is not found in other modern day religions to such a degree, and see nothing wrong with increasing immigration scrutiny on those individuals--much like we do and have done with specific nationalities.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2013, 03:16:41 PM
I inferred it by you saying that you bear no ill-will yet indicating that Muslims have yet to say "this terrorism thing was a bad idea, let's all drop it". Hence the contradiction. I'm honestly a thrown off by this. Collective punishment isn't normally your thing. Should all ethnic groups be profiled? For instance, I imagine some ethnic group has a higher rate of tax evasion then others. Should the IRS audit those people more carefully?
Think of it this way. There are 100 Muslims standing in a room. Not all of them will bomb a race, but I don't know for sure which will and which won't.. The 99 that will not bomb a race I have no ill will towards. But I'm still going to worry if all 100 of them put on backpacks and head to a crowded public space, in a way that I won't worry about 100 Norwegian backpackers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2013, 04:48:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2013, 03:16:41 PM
I inferred it by you saying that you bear no ill-will yet indicating that Muslims have yet to say "this terrorism thing was a bad idea, let's all drop it". Hence the contradiction. I'm honestly a thrown off by this. Collective punishment isn't normally your thing. Should all ethnic groups be profiled? For instance, I imagine some ethnic group has a higher rate of tax evasion then others. Should the IRS audit those people more carefully?
Think of it this way. There are 100 Muslims standing in a room. Not all of them will bomb a race, but I don't know for sure which will and which won't.. The 99 that will not bomb a race I have no ill will towards. But I'm still going to worry if all 100 of them put on backpacks and head to a crowded public space, in a way that I won't worry about 100 Norwegian backpackers.
Yeah, because those guys never do anything sociopathic. :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on April 21, 2013, 05:27:28 PM
Yeah, because those guys never do anything sociopathic. :hmm:
I'm sure Yi would be more concerned about 100 Norwegian sailors in a bar than 100 Muslim sailors, though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2013, 04:48:06 PM
Think of it this way. There are 100 Muslims standing in a room. Not all of them will bomb a race, but I don't know for sure which will and which won't.. The 99 that will not bomb a race I have no ill will towards. But I'm still going to worry if all 100 of them put on backpacks and head to a crowded public space, in a way that I won't worry about 100 Norwegian backpackers.
See, this is why people are calling you bigoted. Tolerant people are not expressing such thoughts out loud.
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2013, 05:52:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2013, 04:48:06 PM
Think of it this way. There are 100 Muslims standing in a room. Not all of them will bomb a race, but I don't know for sure which will and which won't.. The 99 that will not bomb a race I have no ill will towards. But I'm still going to worry if all 100 of them put on backpacks and head to a crowded public space, in a way that I won't worry about 100 Norwegian backpackers.
See, this is why people are calling you bigoted. Tolerant people are not expressing such thoughts out loud.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2013, 04:48:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2013, 03:16:41 PM
I inferred it by you saying that you bear no ill-will yet indicating that Muslims have yet to say "this terrorism thing was a bad idea, let's all drop it". Hence the contradiction. I'm honestly a thrown off by this. Collective punishment isn't normally your thing. Should all ethnic groups be profiled? For instance, I imagine some ethnic group has a higher rate of tax evasion then others. Should the IRS audit those people more carefully?
Think of it this way. There are 100 Muslims standing in a room. Not all of them will bomb a race, but I don't know for sure which will and which won't.. The 99 that will not bomb a race I have no ill will towards. But I'm still going to worry if all 100 of them put on backpacks and head to a crowded public space, in a way that I won't worry about 100 Norwegian backpackers.
So the state should take action because you are edgy about certain ethnic groups?
Too spazzy Raz, I'm done.
Yeah, Raz. You're obviously overly irritated today for some reason, more so than usual.
Nobody's going to come out and play with you when you're like this.
That said, Yi is pretty wrong-headed on this even if Raz is going about it wrong.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 21, 2013, 08:58:10 PM
Yeah, Raz. You're obviously overly irritated today for some reason, more so than usual.
Nobody's going to come out and play with you when you're like this.
Raz is having an "episode". :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2013, 08:46:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 21, 2013, 05:07:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2013, 04:15:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 21, 2013, 03:31:59 PM
:lol:
What's so funny.
Oh, you were serious? Sorry :(
You got something or not?
Cards just tied up, 2-2 going into the bottom of the 6th :)
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2013, 09:00:51 PM
That said, Yi is pretty wrong-headed on this even if Raz is going about it wrong.
No, the Chinaman is dead on. A sane immigration/Visa policy would give extra scrutiny to people from Muslim countries/regions. It's not as if we have some overriding need to let them in.
Quote from: derspiess on April 21, 2013, 09:09:36 PM
It's not as if we have some overriding need to let them in.
Need more kebab joints?
More gas stations. Cal's hungry.
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2013, 09:00:51 PM
That said, Yi is pretty wrong-headed on this even if Raz is going about it wrong.
What is the proper way?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2013, 04:48:06 PM
But I'm still going to worry if all 100 of them put on backpacks and head to a crowded public space, in a way that I won't worry about 100 Norwegian backpackers.
Then you would have missed this guy:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.gadu-gadu.pl%2Fbreivik-33b61eb74097e63cc57178ba14d651038130d46e.jpg&hash=c9441c3942bc7b3461459c511ae65b7f74afbef5)
Quote from: derspiess on April 21, 2013, 09:09:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2013, 09:00:51 PM
That said, Yi is pretty wrong-headed on this even if Raz is going about it wrong.
No, the Chinaman is dead on. A sane immigration/Visa policy would give extra scrutiny to people from Muslim countries/regions. It's not as if we have some overriding need to let them in.
Only it's not true.
And I am not arguing that it would be politically incorrect or morally wrong - but that it would be simply erroneous from a statistical point of view, and it shows an immense selection bias fallacy.
Over the last 13 years or so (generously extended to include 911), about 5,000 people died in the West in what can be seen as Muslim terrorism. During that time nearly 1,000,000 were killed in the US alone in gun related violence (including several dozens of mass shootings) and one Norwegian alone (using Breivik here, since Yi specifically used Norwegians as an example of a "safe" ethnicity) singlehandedly murdered in Norway more people than any lone Muslim terrorist in the West (I will remind you here Yi is advocating racial profiling based on 2 people dying - the Norwegian killed over 80 people).
And furthermore, if you compare the number of Muslim people involved in terrorist attacks on the US soil with a number of Muslims living in the US, the number will be between one in a hundred thousand and one in a million - so this is clearly not a risk serious enough to inform governmental policy.
So yes, it is extremely boneheaded and is an example of statistics being used to justify bigotry.
Quote from: Martinus on April 22, 2013, 06:47:23 AM
Over the last 13 years or so (generously extended to include 911), about 5,000 people died in the West in what can be seen as Muslim terrorism. During that time nearly 1,000,000 were killed in the US alone in gun related violence
Link plz.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 22, 2013, 07:26:59 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 22, 2013, 06:47:23 AM
Over the last 13 years or so (generously extended to include 911), about 5,000 people died in the West in what can be seen as Muslim terrorism. During that time nearly 1,000,000 were killed in the US alone in gun related violence
Link plz.
www.google.com
Uh, Mart you said that a million Americans have died of gun related violence in the last 13 years. That's a pretty extreme claim. You are going to need a killer source for that one. That's like 20 times as many Americans that died in the Vietnam war. Are you seriously going with that or did you forget how many zeros are in a million?
Sorry, it's since 1980s. I misquoted the source. So strike that part out but the fact that so few people died to Muslim terrorism still stands. Same with the likelihood of a Muslim being a terrorist.
Made up sources aside, Marti has a point. Based on the odds I have witnessed recently, I should be more afraid of an American that could have a gun than a Muslim who might have a pressue cooker.
I was basing it on this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fdk-production%2Fimages%2F28719%2Flarge%2FSenateGunfail-deaths.jpg&hash=0766ca9e16c59843a4f74559bb343ee78225d9ec)
There's about 10k a year now, so I'm sure you have to go back well before 1980 to get a million.
Ok, so going by the last year, it's 2 to 10,000. :rolleyes:
Quote from: sbr on April 22, 2013, 08:48:56 AM
Made up sources aside, Marti has a point. Based on the odds I have witnessed recently, I should be more afraid of an American that could have a gun than a Muslim who might have a pressue cooker.
Really? So do you frequent high-crime inner city areas much?
What's the crime rate in Newtown CN?
I dont frequent marathons, army bases or 747s so I should definitely be safe from the Muslims.
I was attacking your claim, not your argument. :P
I will note that it's the randomness of terrorist attacks rather than the frequency which causes general alarm. Most people are positive that their spouse/child/employee/neighbor/etc is not gonna shoot them up.
Quote from: sbr on April 22, 2013, 08:48:56 AM
Made up sources aside, Marti has a point. Based on the odds I have witnessed recently, I should be more afraid of an American that could have a gun than a Muslim who might have a pressue cooker.
Both sides have a point. Being a Muslim is clearly a risk factor for being a terrorist. However, terror itself is a very tiny risk factor for dying, far too tiny to have our society go down that slippery slope of officially profiling individuals for that reason. Freedom isn't free, and as the gun debate shows, we're willing to spend thousands of lives per yer on far less fundamental freedoms than not being profiled.
Quote from: sbr on April 22, 2013, 08:48:56 AM
Made up sources aside, Marti has a point. Based on the odds I have witnessed recently, I should be more afraid of an American that could have a gun than a Muslim who might have a pressue cooker.
Depends. Your chances of being a victim of gun violence in America is predicated upon risk factors and risk behavior.
Like being a 6 year old in school.
Well, since you're not 6 years old in a school, you don't have to worry about it, now do you?
Yeah thank god I got out of those dangerous years.
He could get shot up by cops because a former coworker comes in and shoots his boss.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 22, 2013, 09:09:10 AM
He could get shot up by cops because a former coworker comes in and shoots his boss.
Or he could get in his car and be one of the 33,000 auto fatalities a year.
Or he might have an aneurysm while reading Languish. :hmm:
We should profile car drivers.
No teenagers, no Asian women, and all drivers over 65 get tested for a provisional license yearly.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 22, 2013, 09:15:00 AM
No teenagers, no Asian women, and all drivers over 65 get tested for a provisional license yearly.
I could get on board with some of that. Driving age should be increased to 18 at least, and I like the idea about testing old people.
Yeah, teenagers and the elderly, #1 and #2 in fatality demographics.
I mean, I appreciate that you were the Greatest Generation and all, but the fact that you flew a B-17 in 1945 doesn't mean you can drive a Buick now.
Quote from: DGuller on April 22, 2013, 09:00:04 AM
Quote from: sbr on April 22, 2013, 08:48:56 AM
Made up sources aside, Marti has a point. Based on the odds I have witnessed recently, I should be more afraid of an American that could have a gun than a Muslim who might have a pressue cooker.
Both sides have a point. Being a Muslim is clearly a risk factor for being a terrorist. However, terror itself is a very tiny risk factor for dying, far too tiny to have our society go down that slippery slope of officially profiling individuals for that reason. Freedom isn't free, and as the gun debate shows, we're willing to spend thousands of lives per yer on far less fundamental freedoms than not being profiled.
Yes, I have to agree with DGul.
Quote from: sbr on April 22, 2013, 08:48:56 AM
Made up sources aside, Marti has a point. Based on the odds I have witnessed recently, I should be more afraid of an American that could have a gun than a Muslim who might have a pressue cooker.
He does have a point, which is only tangentially related to mine. I'm talking about scrutinizing visa and immigration applications. Not applicable to American citizens.
Unless you subscribe to the logic that until Muslim terrorists kill 90,000 people a year we shouldn't worry about it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 22, 2013, 11:38:32 AM
Quote from: sbr on April 22, 2013, 08:48:56 AM
Made up sources aside, Marti has a point. Based on the odds I have witnessed recently, I should be more afraid of an American that could have a gun than a Muslim who might have a pressue cooker.
He does have a point, which is only tangentially related to mine. I'm talking about scrutinizing visa and immigration applications. Not applicable to American citizens.
Unless you subscribe to the logic that until Muslim terrorists kill 90,000 people a year we shouldn't worry about it.
Oh. I thought you were talking about profiling American citizens. I'm cool with scrutinizing visa and immigration stuff.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2013, 11:40:34 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 22, 2013, 11:38:32 AM
Quote from: sbr on April 22, 2013, 08:48:56 AM
Made up sources aside, Marti has a point. Based on the odds I have witnessed recently, I should be more afraid of an American that could have a gun than a Muslim who might have a pressue cooker.
He does have a point, which is only tangentially related to mine. I'm talking about scrutinizing visa and immigration applications. Not applicable to American citizens.
Unless you subscribe to the logic that until Muslim terrorists kill 90,000 people a year we shouldn't worry about it.
Oh. I thought you were talking about profiling American citizens. I'm cool with scrutinizing visa and immigration stuff.
:lmfao:
You missed out on that one minor detail?
Quote from: DGuller on April 20, 2013, 11:35:13 PM
I would say that acting on such beliefs is where it gets sketchy. There is no doubt that profiling is effective in measurable terms, useful liberal lies notwithstanding. The problem is that the damage done to social fabric by employing profiling is immeasurable but huge, which in the end makes its utility dubious at best.
Btw, I wanted to say that I think this post is pretty spot on.
Quote from: derspiess on April 22, 2013, 11:47:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2013, 11:40:34 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 22, 2013, 11:38:32 AM
Quote from: sbr on April 22, 2013, 08:48:56 AM
Made up sources aside, Marti has a point. Based on the odds I have witnessed recently, I should be more afraid of an American that could have a gun than a Muslim who might have a pressue cooker.
He does have a point, which is only tangentially related to mine. I'm talking about scrutinizing visa and immigration applications. Not applicable to American citizens.
Unless you subscribe to the logic that until Muslim terrorists kill 90,000 people a year we shouldn't worry about it.
Oh. I thought you were talking about profiling American citizens. I'm cool with scrutinizing visa and immigration stuff.
:lmfao:
You missed out on that one minor detail?
Yeah I did derbreitbart. What of it? It's not like violating civil rights of minorities is way out there amongst the GOP. Peter King is calling for increased surveillance of Muslim in this country.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2013, 11:56:19 AM
Yeah I did derbreitbart. What of it? It's not like violating civil rights of minorities is way out there amongst the GOP. Peter King is calling for increased surveillance of Muslim in this country.
Could have saved some squabbling. You actually agreed with Yi all along yet kept nipping at his heels based upon your own misunderstanding.
And Peter King does not speak for the GOP. He's kind of out there on his own on most things.
Squabbling is the spice of life. You might want to look a litter closer at the GOP. Most of them don't like Muslims.
QuoteThe results are split sharply along partisan lines. Overall, Republican voters hold strongly negative views of Muslims, with 57 percent saying they view them unfavorably and just 26 saying they view them favorably — more than double. The numbers are similar for Arabs, whom Republican respondents view negatively by a slightly smaller margin of 26 percent, 53 to 27 percent. When asked about "Muslim Americans" and "Arab Americans," the numbers improved slightly, with a 12 and 15 percent net unfavorable rating, respectively.
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/23/poll_republicans_really_dislike_muslims/
So, using the "B" word with a Republican hits the mark more often then not.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2013, 12:09:32 PM
Squabbling is the spice of life. You might want to look a litter closer at the GOP. Most of them don't like Muslims.
QuoteThe results are split sharply along partisan lines. Overall, Republican voters hold strongly negative views of Muslims, with 57 percent saying they view them unfavorably and just 26 saying they view them favorably — more than double. The numbers are similar for Arabs, whom Republican respondents view negatively by a slightly smaller margin of 26 percent, 53 to 27 percent. When asked about "Muslim Americans" and "Arab Americans," the numbers improved slightly, with a 12 and 15 percent net unfavorable rating, respectively.
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/23/poll_republicans_really_dislike_muslims/
So, using the "B" word with a Republican hits the mark more often then not.
:yawn:
Good that we agree on that. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2013, 12:14:11 PM
Good that we agree on that. :)
That salon.com is a lousy source? Sure.
You didn't say that. You yawned which I interpreted as "old news". You can look at the poll if you like. It was done by Zogby at the request of the Arab American institute.
Actually the poll is pretty interesting.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103694579/The-American-Divide-Zogby-Poll
I'm sure we can trust the Ayrabs and their guy Zogby to do a non-biased poll. Cuz there's no way they'd want to portray themselves as victims.
Do you have evidence of a biased poll or are you just throwing that out there cause you got nothing else? This is usually about the time you skulk off, so I suppose that's a third choice.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2013, 12:38:22 PM
Do you have evidence of a biased poll or are you just throwing that out there cause you got nothing else? This is usually about the time you skulk off, so I suppose that's a third choice.
I'm just saying I'd take the poll with a large grain of salt.
Because you don't like what it says or because you found systematic errors in methods.? I mean, if you can find another poll that discounts it, I'm all ears. Looking around, I'm find other polls concerning Republicans and Muslims that indicate hostility amongst Republicans toward Muslims.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/atheists-muslims-bias-presidential-candidates.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146540/republicans-democrats-disagree-muslim-hearings.aspx
Good. Now find me some opinion polls on Peter King.
Quote from: derspiess on April 22, 2013, 01:40:50 PM
Good. Now find me some opinion polls on Peter King.
Here's Peter King commenting on a poll. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62317.html
Okay.
Hey, you asked for it.
I think the GOP has gotten worse on Muslims since Obama was elected. Bush kinda kept them in check.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2013, 02:07:59 PM
Hey, you asked for it.
I think the GOP has gotten worse on Muslims since Obama was elected. Bush kinda kept them in check.
Raz, my original point was that I find Peter King to be an embarrassment and that I don't think he generally represents the GOP.
Btw Bill Maher had a pretty decent rant: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/04/20/maher-guest-defending-islam-wake-boston-bombing-thats-lberal-bulls-t
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2013, 12:28:37 PM
Actually the poll is pretty interesting.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103694579/The-American-Divide-Zogby-Poll
Why on earth would anyone actually have a favorable view of Islam (if they're not a Muslim)? :yeahright:
Because they're supposed to lie.
Quote from: Kleves on April 22, 2013, 02:42:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2013, 12:28:37 PM
Actually the poll is pretty interesting.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103694579/The-American-Divide-Zogby-Poll
Why on earth would anyone actually have a favorable view of Islam (if they're not a Muslim)? :yeahright:
Favorable view of muslims and arab Americans.
Quote from: derspiess on April 22, 2013, 02:19:09 PM
Btw Bill Maher had a pretty decent rant: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/04/20/maher-guest-defending-islam-wake-boston-bombing-thats-lberal-bulls-t
Yeah, I saw that on your breitbart site.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2013, 04:18:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 22, 2013, 02:19:09 PM
Btw Bill Maher had a pretty decent rant: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/04/20/maher-guest-defending-islam-wake-boston-bombing-thats-lberal-bulls-t
Yeah, I saw that on your breitbart site.
I'm more of a Blaze man these days :P