|
The ultimate Israel - Palestine Thread (it's all here) (pg. 112)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Abhay |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
One man's garbage is another man's treasure. There is no law guaranteeing the validity of any news source. Nor it's sources reliability.
There's a thing called commercial speech and it is not, I repeat, it is not guaranteed the same right as Constitutional free speech under the First Amendment.
So all your hoopin' and hollerin' about how unreliable google sources are is unwarranted, since commercial speech is unprotected speech.
The same way a site can "buy" it's rank, it can also "buy" it's reliability.
Court Reverses Ruling on Jane Akre's rBGH Suit
This is a thread on Palestine and Israel. Let stay on topic. If you want a google bashing thread then start one |
Ummm...
yeah, i agree we should stick to the topic,
but i kinda gotta say this: i never said ALL google sources are unreliable...
just re-read what i said...
Basically, I"m saying, you can't just Google something, find the first result, and use it. If your gonna pull out stuff from a news article, be careful about it...
Re-read what i said, if u must...;) |
|
|
| Abhay |
| quote: | Originally posted by Escobar
There are Plenty of Factual arguments posted by me in this thread....none of them have anything to do with Christian-Zionism.
By supporting Palestinian, you are in fact supporting Terror...Palestinians are the ultimate Terrorists in our Planet...they have been doing it for years...but nobudy seems to give2 s since they are only killing "Jews".....if they were pulling that with Canada or USA, would be a lot different. |
"Terrorist"
the latest de-humanising term...
Just like "gook", "yankees", "pigs", "commie", "commie-lover" and "******"...
As much as it's difficult to believe... Terrorists are HUMAN BEINGS...
It's easier to hate them, and dehumanise them, because it then makes it OK for us to treat "terrorists" like animals...
I'm ign sick of the word...
in the news, there's not one sentencie without "terrorist", "terror", etc.
EDIT:
FOR 'S SAKE... the last one was refers to african americans, before the poor fellas had any rights... |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
@ Abhay
Ok , what the hell are you accusing everyone else of. I'm the one who posted some articles right before you passed that comment.(and after Youpes climed that the occupation was not the same as oppression, those articles being very recent and relevant.) And I didn't find them by google-ing for them. Usually when I'm checking the news, I check many different sources, incliding the BBC and Yahoo News, both mainstream corperate owned media and more independent publications.
So you're only making yourself look like an idiot by attacking everyone else. Plus you're a flip flop. You seemed initialy to lean more to the Palestinian cause and then after some time arguing agaisnt anyone who argued agaisnt Zionism. And don't tell me you're trying to be objective. You eighter have really weak opinions or you're just fooling youreself by pretending to be objetive by flip flopping. |
|
|
| Abhay |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
@ Abhay
Ok , what the hell are you accusing everyone else of. I'm the one who posted some articles right before you passed that comment.(and after Youpes climed that the occupation was not the same as oppression, those articles being very recent and relevant.) And I didn't find them by google-ing for them. Usually when I'm checking the news, I check many different sources, incliding the BBC and Yahoo News, both mainstream corperate owned media and more independent publications.
So you're only making yourself look like an idiot by attacking everyone else. Plus you're a flip flop. You seemed initialy to lean more to the Palestinian cause and then after some time arguing agaisnt anyone who argued agaisnt Zionism. And don't tell me you're trying to be objective. You eighter have really weak opinions or you're just fooling youreself by pretending to be objetive by flip flopping. |
It's OK buddy....
just calm down, everything's gonna be alright...
Breathe in... (hold)... 1,2,3...
now... breathe out.. (hold)... 1,2,3
Firstly, go back and read what i said, about ur second paragraph...
don't make comments, when u haven't even read what i've said properly..
secondly.... all I'm saying is that, we just need to make sure when we use other articles on teh internet to back up a point... it's important especially being careful to watch teh context and bias of the story... not to mention the source...
I'm not ACCUSING anyone of ANYTHING... I'm just saying, don't just grab random internet sources and randomly copy paste internet articles, becasue that's very easy to do...
Show me the "Cross-referencing" you refer to. You said u found the same thing on BBC, Yahoo news and other news networks...
if there's any form of difference in the stories, then your arguement is screwed, and it shows the sources are unreliable...
;-) |
|
|
| Abhay |
| quote: | Originally posted by zig
I didnt tell you to shutup, i would have no problem telling you to shutup or even stfu, but i didnt, i merely asked for your own opinions rather than offering advice to others, and i didnt realise it was a colloquial expression i used, news to me.
Some of your post is a bit of a ramble so i dont quite understand all the points you make, i presume they are directed at me.
Whats this about
and this
and one more
^^ btw i thought thats what you accused me off, useing fine sayings.
I get your general point but to say that not to believe any news source because they are all biased is obviously a ridiculious assertion to make, and then to go on and make the point that google is also unreliable as a source of information, i think this leaves you open to ridicule.
If people use unreliable sources for their arguements on this thread they are soon discredited as has happened over and over again, but like i said in the beginning to you, lets hear your arguements or point of view and lets see if it stands up to all the "cheap" souces that are used in this thread. |
Yeah, sorry,
I should've made myself more clear....
basically, i'm saying, that if you can't think of anything much to say, you shouldn't just google/news search or whatever you do to quickly find an article, and automatically stick it in the thread.
I'm not pointing fingers
I think it's OK to say something, and grab sources, and make sure that you use good ones, and numerous sources, to back up what you say. If someone can't find another plausible source, to go against it, then the arguement can stick fairly...
Like i said, I"m neutral on this issue... I'm just here to agree and disagree with ppl, regardless of which side ;). Not having an opinion, or being neutral isn't a sin...
I think i might've argued my prior point to strognly, and now everyone thinks that i think EVERY source on teh internet is wrong. But if someone was to pull out a peer reviewed, refereed article, then i would not hesitate at ALL to agree with them. As opposed to someone googling, and jsut copy pasting the first article they see...
;)
Also, I refer to ppl who say something, utterly stupid and unconstructive, to support their "side" of this arguement with my colloqial quotes.
I didn't say you did anythign wrong by using colloquial phrases. I said I AM DOING SOMETHING WRONG ;).
What's more, is that I was stupid to have used english phrases, in a forum, where the entire world is invovled. Of course ppl from other parts of teh world will have difficulty understanding them.
:p |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Escobar
There are Plenty of Factual arguments posted by me in this thread....none of them have anything to do with Christian-Zionism.
By supporting Palestinian, you are in fact supporting Terror...Palestinians are the ultimate Terrorists in our Planet...they have been doing it for years...but nobudy seems to give2 s since they are only killing "Jews".....if they were pulling that with Canada or USA, would be a lot different. |
I dont think you have posted ONE factual argument in this thread, and I haven't even read half of this thread but I feel comfortable making that statemenmt!
And you keep saying I support the Palestinians - you dont even know what that phrase means!
What do you mean I support them? Who? The PLO commando groups? Hamas? The PA? The people who have the misfortune to live there? The Muslims or the Christians? You see I just listed there off the top of my head a number of groups who could be called Palestinian, and all of them mutually exclusive of each other (that means they are different and not connected (with the exception of the PA and the PLO to an extent) so you cannot refer to them as a whole like you are doing)
| quote: | | By supporting Palestinian, you are in fact supporting Terror... |
Now can you see why that sentence looks like it came from the depths of your arsehole?
And this is a question I have asked you on numerous occasions that for some reason you fail to answer time after time...
Do you think Israel should annex the West Bank and Gaza and just have done with it? (and surely for a Christian-Zionist there should be an obvious answer!) |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abhay
But if someone was to pull out a peer reviewed, refereed article, then i would not hesitate at ALL to agree with them. |
Eh?!
So just because someone says it in a journal you'd agree with it straight away? Without going through the same checks as you would with a newspaper? And journal articles are just opinions so there's no reason whatsoever to agree with them (in fact I would argue less so than a news paper especially when commenting on facts or events - newspapers tend to be less opinion based than journals despite the spin they might wanna put on the story) Plus, who has access (apart from me) to the popular journals and more (International Relations, Foreign Affairs, etc)? You have to be a student or a particularly rich subscriber to have access and not everybody here will have that pleasure |
|
|
| Abhay |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Eh?!
So just because someone says it in a journal you'd agree with it straight away? Without going through the same checks as you would with a newspaper? And journal articles are just opinions so there's no reason whatsoever to agree with them (in fact I would argue less so than a news paper especially when commenting on facts or events - newspapers tend to be less opinion based than journals despite the spin they might wanna put on the story) Plus, who has access (apart from me) to the popular journals and more (International Relations, Foreign Affairs, etc)? You have to be a student or a particularly rich subscriber to have access and not everybody here will have that pleasure |
See, I'm talking about jorunal articles, taht are related to the sciences. Whether it be political science, behavioural science, military science. THe list is BROAD, and teh do cover issues on Palestine and Israel....
I would only agree with peer reviewed, refereed articles. What that means is, that they've been looked over by peers int eh same field, adn that they completely agree 100% with every word written in it. IT's not at ALL biased etc. It's purely scientific, not opinionated or anything. Refereed means taht numerous people who are leading and experts in the field, have scrutinized it to every detail, to their 100% satisfaction.
I agree, access to such articles are limited due to the costs. But EVERY uni student would have acess to them....
Everythign that comes from refereed and reviewed journals is considered plausible under science, (remember, science is a VERY road term here)... |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abhay
See, I'm talking about jorunal articles, taht are related to the sciences. Whether it be political science, behavioural science, military science. THe list is BROAD, and teh do cover issues on Palestine and Israel....
I would only agree with peer reviewed, refereed articles. What that means is, that they've been looked over by peers int eh same field, adn that they completely agree 100% with every word written in it. IT's not at ALL biased etc. It's purely scientific, not opinionated or anything. Refereed means taht numerous people who are leading and experts in the field, have scrutinized it to every detail, to their 100% satisfaction.
I agree, access to such articles are limited due to the costs. But EVERY uni student would have acess to them....
Everythign that comes from refereed and reviewed journals is considered plausible under science, (remember, science is a VERY road term here)... |
I'm not sure where you get the idea they are "peer-proofed" from? And if everyone agreed with every word they wrote why is it that in the next issue you always get somebody writing an article arguing why the previous one was wrong? Sure there is an editor to prevent plagurism etc but no idea where you get the idea they are proof read by their peers?
Maybe you are refering to scientific journals? I only have experience with political journals and I can assure you they are 100% biased - how could they not be?! |
|
|
| Abhay |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I'm not sure where you get the idea they are "peer-proofed" from? And if everyone agreed with every word they wrote why is it that in the next issue you always get somebody writing an article arguing why the previous one was wrong? Sure there is an editor to prevent plagurism etc but no idea where you get the idea they are proof read by their peers?
Maybe you are refering to scientific journals? I only have experience with political journals and I can assure you they are 100% biased - how could they not be?! |
Yeah, i think scientific journals...
I got taught that they were a very good source of reliable information....
I'll c if i can find u an example... problem is, i don't know whether it would be legal for me to show it to u, if ur not a suscriber...
But yeah, technically, u can still present an opinion...
It has to be in the form of an HYPOTHESIS....
then ur journal has to have an aim, data, results, conclusion, discussion etc.
It's set out like a scientific experiment.
AS long as u have that format, ur OK..
but I can make a hypothesis, that Palestinian CHildren't cognitive development is impaired when under the influence of Israeli troops, or vice versa...
but i have to prove it, wiht other reliable sources, research, etc. To the satisfaction of other peers in teh field (who could be ANYONE, not necessarily someone you know). These guys, tehn give u their opinioins, as to whether there's any fauts in what u've written. Then before it's published, it's reviewed, by basically a panel. Again, they review it, scrutinise it. If you ed up, tehy tell u what the error in teh logic/arguement is, and tell u to go back and fix it.
;-)
I noticed that u mentioned the peer-proofed thingo..
see, ur peers don't have to Agree with u, they just have to decide whether that conclusion, is plausible under the work u've done, to reach it. (your hypothesis could be right or wrong, it doesn't matter, so long as it's eventually linked to by ur conclusion)....
that's why such journals never have topics like : "Palestine is ed", or "israel is ed"...
IT's just too damn hard to prove...
u'r more likely to get things like:
"The co-relation between political upheaval in the Middle East, and Average Household Income in Palestine"
it's much easier to reach a conclusion, and back up... Though it woudl still be difficult a topic to chase... |
|
|
| George Smiley |
The thing is, I know what you are saying and I agree 100% that journal articles are the greatest source of information for whatever subject, but you have to realise that the authors get their information from a number of sources (usually books or other journal articles) including newspapers and official documents. When we post on here, WE are the authors and therefore to back up our ideas, as the authors of journals do, we can use official documents, journal articles and newspapers. We all have our opinions and if they are challenged then we can either argue our point until it becomes either agreed or if not we have to provide evidence and that evidence can be anything that I have listed above. If we are purely looking for facts then newspapers are probably the best place to look. If we are looking for an opinion to back us up, then newspapers might not be the best place to look but journals are.
If you only have experience with scientific journals then maybe that is not as relevent here. Scientific journals (I would assume) have to be 100% fact and no opinion (if you see what I mean) whereas political journals are 100% opinion despite the facts they include (that just makes their opinion a little easier to swallow). Because in politics, the same fact can be used by both sides of the arguemtn to back up their claims whereas (I think) the same could not be said for science.
If you want to show me some examples give me the journal title, volume and number and I can check it through my uni account |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
Man Arrested for Having Uzi
NEW YORK (AP) - An ex-Israeli army soldier living in Queens has been arrested for plotting to buy a half-dozen hand grenades. Police searching his Rego Park apartment found an Uzi submachine gun and ammunition.
Police say 57-year-old Joshua Hedvat reportedly made threats to a judge, a rabbi and U-S Senator Charles Schumer. However, Schumer's office says they knew of no threats.
Authorities and neighbors say Hedvat complained that his family fortune in Iran was cheated from him.
Neighbors told police Hedvat was a loner who often muttered about violence, but he never did anything dangerous.
(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Man Busted, Charged with trying to Buy Illegal Weapons
(Rego Park-WABC, May 9, 2005) — A man from Queens is under arrest for allegedly wanting to buy six hand grenades. He's accused of trying to make a deal with a person who turned out to be an undercover cop.
It happened in Rego Park. Eyewitness News' Nina Pineda reports.
People who live across the hall, right next to 57-year-old Joshua Hedvat say they were sick when they found out he had an Uzi inside of the apartment and was reportedly trying to build some sort of mini- arsenal. They tell us this was the crazy neighbor, the one who ranted and raved about the U.S. government, conspiracy theories, and talked about blowing things up. They didn't take him seriously.
Police nabbed the 56-year-old man allegedly trying to buy the explosives near his Rego Park home. They say their investigation revealed the suspect had a business deal go bad on him. Police say he is an American citizen of Armenian-Jewish decent who reportedly tried to solicit help by writing letters to area rabbis. When he didn't get the response he wanted, they say he wrote to a judge and Senator Charles Schumer.
Neighbors said he seemed angry and unstable. Police say he was a disturbed person who already had an arsenal: a machine gun in the apartment along with illegal assault weapon 149 rounds of ammunition.
Police are charging him with possession of illegal weapons, and attempting to possess illegal weaponry.
End of article.
Tin hats.
Get your tin hats right here. |
|
|
|
|
