Originally posted by gummybear
but how can the sources be biased if it is open to the general public? it is representative of the public at large....there are no rules on who can join and post..you don't have to have certain affiliations to post a video...so, some may be bias..but if you have a good piece of footage that is backed by facts..i don't see what the problem is with posting the video...
what ummie posted is not a biased piece..it is footage of a professor from israel that is speaking to a group of individuals in a university in the US. It is not edited..it's a scholar that is giving a lecture to another group of scholars...So who is bias..the professor or the person who posted the footage? I just don't get it..people make general comments like "footage on youtube is biased" and it is based on nothing that makes sense..
You just basically asked how members of the general public can be biased? Let's see. The general public is made up of people, from both sides of the issue. Members of one side, lets call them Ferrari lovers, make videos saying that Ferrari's perform very well, disregarding that they break down a lot, cost a lot and have very high insurance rates. Members of the other side make a video showing that Frod's are inexpensive, and very economical, disregarding the fact that they break down a lot, and may have inferior build quality.
The fact that youtube is open to the general public is what allows for videos on there to be biased. THERE IS NO CHECK.
Your words such as 'professor', 'scholars', and 'university' are just fallacies, in which you attempt to legitimize the source with credentials. When you make a point, don't throw around titles, or institutions. Throw around facts. I agree that if somebody is going to call it biased then they should have facts as well, but you have done nothing to legitimize the sources you are defending.
There are a lot educated people on here, that just do not know how to construct an argument. By constructing, and using poor arguments, you are only furthering yourself from the goal of persuading the other parties. So please for the love of god, leave the emotion out of your arguments, and start with some facts, with some sources, and well thought out points. (not specifically directed at you gummybear) This is the whole problem in this thread. A lot name calling, and lot of emotional walls.
gummybear
quote:
Originally posted by Orko
You just basically asked how members of the general public can be biased? Let's see. The general public is made up of people, from both sides of the issue. Members of one side, lets call them Ferrari lovers, make videos saying that Ferrari's perform very well, disregarding that they break down a lot, cost a lot and have very high insurance rates. Members of the other side make a video showing that Frod's are inexpensive, and very economical, disregarding the fact that they break down a lot, and may have inferior build quality.
The fact that youtube is open to the general public is what allows for videos on there to be biased. THERE IS NO CHECK.
Your words such as 'professor', 'scholars', and 'university' are just fallacies, in which you attempt to legitimize the source with credentials. When you make a point, don't throw around titles, or institutions. Throw around facts. I agree that if somebody is going to call it biased then they should have facts as well, but you have done nothing to legitimize the sources you are defending.
There are a lot educated people on here, that just do not know how to construct an argument. By constructing, and using poor arguments, you are only furthering yourself from the goal of persuading the other parties. So please for the love of god, leave the emotion out of your arguments, and start with some facts, with some sources, and well thought out points. (not specifically directed at you gummybear) This is the whole problem in this thread. A lot name calling, and lot of emotional walls.
Digi indicated that he didn't feel the US supported Israel as much as we said..I have provided several sources..along with some other people on here...that supports what we all know to be true..some of us posted videos...some posted articles...report...stats (put out by a washington journal)...etc..the end.
Yes, i have been emotional about what is going on..but..i would never make statements about the general conflict without backing it up. If you read back, you will see that all i have ever talked about is the current actions of israel and the happenings of this current conflict..I have never once got into the history, the occupation..who the land belongs to..religion..etc..etc...cuz those subjects can sometimes become subjective...
There are a lot of people making very bold statements here...such as the youtube comment.....how can you even quantify such a statement? it is so subjective..you would have to be a psychic to know the intentions of every person who posts or makes a video....so, to me...people that make comments like that are basing it from their emotions..because they "feel" that it is, so it is....all i wanted chem to do was quantify it for me...instead of arguing about youtube and whether it's biased..why don't people just be happy that we have so many mediums that we are able to access..how else would we be able to see this professor speak? why not listen to the message rather than jumping on the medium right away??
maybe it's cuz people don't want to hear the message so they attack the medium??
but thanks for your opinions of me..i will definitely keep them in mind
;)
Abercrombie
OK then if the source is not an issue, and we are to look at the message... I did find a Palestinian opinion not shared here previously.
As you can see, not all Palestinians are estremists, nor do they all support Hamas.
ChemEnhanced
All I am suggesting is people shouldn't be using videos they find on youtube as evidence to support their position....just like you wouldn't use a youtube video in your thesis for school.
The majority of the videos in this thread are nothing more then biased views of one side of the story. SOme of the videos have no references to sources for information contained in them and others are just video footage that some person shot with no guarantee of its validity.
Cyrus King
I was watching BBC.. and the corresspondent in Jeruselem was explaining how the IDF rounded up about 100 people into a building telling them it was a safe place to stay and told them not to leave.
13 hours later, they shelled it and ended up killing 30 people from that group
IDF = TERRORISTS
UmmiE
quote:
Originally posted by Cyrus King
IDF = TERRORISTS
IDF + The Govt of Israel = Terrorists.
Fixed
DarV
Zionism = Terrorism
DarV
to the person who found the quote of David Ben-Guiron not to be of any importance here well you re jsut dumb.
beacuse in that quote you have a former Prime Minister of Israel who accepted the fact that Israel had stolen palestinian land and he also agreed that there could be no peace between them. here ill quote it again.
"I don't understand your optimism. Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So, it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out. "
heres another quote from David Ben Gurion former israeli prime minister
“We must use TERROR, Assasination, Intimidation, Land Confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”
DarV
Shade
quote:
Regardless - I don't know what you're trying to say with this.
really you dont know what im trying to say with these quotes REALLY.
maybe you should take your head out of your ass and learn to read what your former prime minister said.
Use terror as in TERRORISM you dumbass
Israel = Terrorist state
Abercrombie
quote:
Originally posted by DarV
to the person who found the quote of David Ben-Guiron not to be of any importance here well you re jsut dumb.
beacuse in that quote you have a former Prime Minister of Israel who accepted the fact that Israel had stolen palestinian land and he also agreed that there could be no peace between them. here ill quote it again.
"I don't understand your optimism. Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So, it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out. "
heres another quote from David Ben Gurion former israeli prime minister
“We must use TERROR, Assasination, Intimidation, Land Confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”
Politicians do say stupid things, I agree.
To show that political leaders on BOTH sides have not said the best things in their interest, here's Hamas' quotes on TV;
tatgirl
quote:
Originally posted by gummybear
why do you say that..because YOU don't believe it to be true? or can't conceive of it..?
Because if Israel's mission were to 'ethnic cleanse', then all the other arab villages in the country would be targeted, and that's just not the f'in case. But thank you for jumping on the bandwagon.
gummybear
quote:
Originally posted by tatgirl
Because if Israel's mission were to 'ethnic cleanse', then all the other arab villages in the country would be targeted, and that's just not the f'in case. But thank you for jumping on the bandwagon.
hey tatgirl..why get testy with me? all i'm suggesting is how do we really know the intentions of any government? do you think there is any one government in this world that is %100 honest?
and i have no clue what you're referring to in terms of the bandwagon..:rolleyes:
btw. to those that are interested here's the link to the article about the house they shelled...
