It is a study because they've compared two sets of data.

 

This research was supported by the United States Department of Homeland Security

 

lol

 

Also, your OP definition to terrorism doesn't work.

Acts of terrorism (defined here as attacks against civilians by substate actors with the intent of achieving a political goal)

 

I don't see them comparing the studies, I might have missed it, but they mention the other study but never have a section dedicated to comparing. And still, where's the control? Where's the section that tells how they went about their random selection? How do you think a couple hundred to a thousand or two in each area is representative?

 

 

 

e:

 

Disagree, sorry. You're completely wrong. Views like this are no better than their conservative counterparts, except for the fact that they're not conservative :twss:

 

Noted, withdraw previous statement

Also, was this study peer-reviewed at all?

i have an issue with islam itself. i think the world would be a better place without it

I'm sorry but can I have a valid reason WHY the world would be a better place without it?

This thread is too funny, I think because everyone involved is so emersed in their position, they can't see outside of it. It looks pretty clear to me you guys are kind of saying the same thing.

 

 

Side 1: The sky is blue.

 

Side 2: NO ITS NOT ITS THE OPPOSITE OF ORANGE

 

Side 1: WELL YOUR WRONG ITS CLEARLY BLUE TO ME

 

Side 2:WELL IM LOOKING RIGHT HERE AT A COLOR WHEEL AND ITS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF ORANGE

 

 

Both Sides (said in comical unison): ARE YOU STUPID?

 

 

----------

 

The issue, as I'm seeing it, is there is a fundamental issue with this debate. If you look at it one way, you guys aren't really debating the same topic even. If you look at it the other way, you guys are kinda following the above 5 lines, even if they were satirical.

 

 

But I've not read the Koran myself on this, and even though my parents say every Muslim is taught to hate America, I don't think I'll take their word for it.

This thread is too funny, I think because everyone involved is so emersed in their position, they can't see outside of it. It looks pretty clear to me you guys are kind of saying the same thing.

 

 

Side 1: The sky is blue.

 

Side 2: NO ITS NOT ITS THE OPPOSITE OF ORANGE

 

Side 1: WELL YOUR WRONG ITS CLEARLY BLUE TO ME

 

Side 2:WELL IM LOOKING RIGHT HERE AT A COLOR WHEEL AND ITS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF ORANGE

 

 

Both Sides (said in comical unison): ARE YOU STUPID?

 

 

----------

 

The issue, as I'm seeing it, is there is a fundamental issue with this debate. If you look at it one way, you guys aren't really debating the same topic even. If you look at it the other way, you guys are kinda following the above 5 lines, even if they were satirical.

 

 

But I've not read the Koran myself on this, and even though my parents say every Muslim is taught to hate America, I don't think I'll take their word for it.

We don't. It's just another stupid stereotype.

Can we have even one thread that doesn't devolve into this [cabbage]?

 

Not when the original point of discussion is so unclearly (hoorah words that don't exist) defined. Not everyone is able to connect the dots, so instead of intelligent discussion it becomes usually

 

1) Christainity vs anything else

2) Atheism vs anything else

3) Left vs Right

4) Propaganda vs fact (ie where's your proof where's your proof where's your proof where's your proof where's your proof where's your proof where's your proof )

 

And it's usually one of a few users for each focus of conversation that start the spiraling down to Topic Hell.

 

Lots of people have actions that contradict their beliefs. We're human. I'm sure there are a lot of people that would qualify for the definition of a psychopath if we only looked at one set of their actions. My thoughts on the matter? So what? Clearly we've all realized this from the moment we were able to critically think and ask questions about life, actions, morality, etc. So why do we all have a freak out the moment the focus of the day switches to another group of people? It sucks when things like these studies, which are studies on human nature, are used as excuses for personal agendas (not you, sees_all, but the people who pay for studies such as these).

We don't. It's just another stupid stereotype.

 

 

But on that same token, just as I shouldn't take my parents word for it, neither should I blindly take yours.

 

 

-Note-

I'm not saying you are wrong, or that you have bad intentions, simply that I don't tend to take things at face value.

We don't. It's just another stupid stereotype.

 

 

But on that same token, just as I shouldn't take my parents word for it, neither should I blindly take yours.

 

 

-Note-

I'm not saying you are wrong, or that you have bad intentions, simply that I don't tend to take things at face value.

You're right. I should have said, "MOST of us don't." The thing is that 90% of Americans assume that if they see a Muslim, they're immediately a "terrorist."

This thread is too funny, I think because everyone involved is so emersed in their position, they can't see outside of it. It looks pretty clear to me you guys are kind of saying the same thing.

 

 

Side 1: The sky is blue.

 

Side 2: NO ITS NOT ITS THE OPPOSITE OF ORANGE

 

Side 1: WELL YOUR WRONG ITS CLEARLY BLUE TO ME

 

Side 2:WELL IM LOOKING RIGHT HERE AT A COLOR WHEEL AND ITS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF ORANGE

 

 

Both Sides (said in comical unison): ARE YOU STUPID?

 

 

----------

 

The issue, as I'm seeing it, is there is a fundamental issue with this debate. If you look at it one way, you guys aren't really debating the same topic even. If you look at it the other way, you guys are kinda following the above 5 lines, even if they were satirical.

 

 

But I've not read the Koran myself on this, and even though my parents say every Muslim is taught to hate America, I don't think I'll take their word for it.

And then Saru shows up with side 3 to say "lawl guys it's not green, alright?" and now we have a thread about how all topics on TIF ultimately degrade to a debate on religion and/or politics in which we all complain about a lack of links and then criticize the links.

We don't. It's just another stupid stereotype.

 

 

But on that same token, just as I shouldn't take my parents word for it, neither should I blindly take yours.

 

 

-Note-

I'm not saying you are wrong, or that you have bad intentions, simply that I don't tend to take things at face value.

You're right. I should have said, "MOST of us don't." The thing is that 90% of Americans assume that if they see a Muslim, they're immediately a "terrorist."

Which is something you've probably been taught, which is also frankly untrue. I won't deny there's some labeling of Muslims as terrorists, but I doubt it's anywhere near 90%.

We don't. It's just another stupid stereotype.

 

 

But on that same token, just as I shouldn't take my parents word for it, neither should I blindly take yours.

 

 

-Note-

I'm not saying you are wrong, or that you have bad intentions, simply that I don't tend to take things at face value.

You're right. I should have said, "MOST of us don't." The thing is that 90% of Americans assume that if they see a Muslim, they're immediately a "terrorist."

Which is something you've probably been taught, which is also frankly untrue. I won't deny there's some labeling of Muslims as terrorists, but I doubt it's anywhere near 90%.

It's easier to think that when you're not Muslim. ;)

Although it is probably lower.

i have an issue with islam itself. i think the world would be a better place without it

I'm sorry but can I have a valid reason WHY the world would be a better place without it?

 

My beef with religion is the morality it imposes on not just its followers but everyone in the community.

 

I have no idea if thats what FAUX meant but thats my personal opinion.

I understand what you mean (and it is true).

I was just wondering why he would single out one religion without backing up his reason.

Well since the source of this information is flimsy at best, and this post makes pretty inflammatory claims I hereby declare this a troll topic. If I had mod powers id lock, but since I dont I will just leave, have a nice day

You have said that about at least three other (large) topics that I've seen, including "Abortion". Including the part about leaving.

10% of the world's Christians can be reasonably defined as terrorists (Hindus, Jews, etc. etc.).

You're 4 pages late.

10% of the world's Christians can be reasonably defined as terrorists (Hindus, Jews, etc. etc.).

You're 4 pages late.

:thumbup:

This thread is too funny, I think because everyone involved is so emersed in their position, they can't see outside of it. It looks pretty clear to me you guys are kind of saying the same thing.

 

 

Side 1: The sky is blue.

 

Side 2: NO ITS NOT ITS THE OPPOSITE OF ORANGE

 

Side 1: WELL YOUR WRONG ITS CLEARLY BLUE TO ME

 

Side 2:WELL IM LOOKING RIGHT HERE AT A COLOR WHEEL AND ITS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF ORANGE

 

 

Both Sides (said in comical unison): ARE YOU STUPID?

 

 

----------

 

The issue, as I'm seeing it, is there is a fundamental issue with this debate. If you look at it one way, you guys aren't really debating the same topic even. If you look at it the other way, you guys are kinda following the above 5 lines, even if they were satirical.

 

 

But I've not read the Koran myself on this, and even though my parents say every Muslim is taught to hate America, I don't think I'll take their word for it.

And then Saru shows up with side 3 to say "lawl guys it's not green, alright?" and now we have a thread about how all topics on TIF ultimately degrade to a debate on religion and/or politics in which we all complain about a lack of links and then criticize the links.

 

 

I lol'd.

 

 

No, what I would do is make a paint picture, and fake it as a url that you click on, and say "wat guys there is no sky :| y troll me like this" and then post a link to the picture, which is a picture of a Fake news article written with the pencil tool in Paint stating there is no sky.

I'll bet the percentage of Americans who fall under your loose definitions is greater. After all, many support the wars in the Middle East.

 

i have an issue with islam itself. i think the world would be a better place without it

Troll harder next time.

 

I'm not trolling, I don't see the need for religion in general. I think it's an outdated concept for people who were born into a world of ignorance. Islam specifically at absolute terms

I'll bet the percentage of Americans who fall under your loose definitions is greater. After all, many support the wars in the Middle East.

 

i have an issue with islam itself. i think the world would be a better place without it

Troll harder next time.

 

I'm not trolling, I don't see the need for religion in general. I think it's an outdated concept for people who were born into a world of ignorance. Islam specifically at absolute terms

 

*sigh*

 

 

What are your reasons for that conclusion exactly? That's an honest question, and I'd love an honest answer. Because it just seems so.... final.

I'll bet the percentage of Americans who fall under your loose definitions is greater. After all, many support the wars in the Middle East.

 

i have an issue with islam itself. i think the world would be a better place without it

Troll harder next time.

 

I'm not trolling, I don't see the need for religion in general. I think it's an outdated concept for people who were born into a world of ignorance. Islam specifically at absolute terms

 

*sigh*

 

 

What are your reasons for that conclusion exactly? That's an honest question, and I'd love an honest answer. Because it just seems so.... final.

That's what I said!

I think it's an outdated concept for people who were born into a world of ignorance. Islam specifically at absolute terms

 

Where is the beauty in a black and white world?

 

Most people these days don't use religion as an answer to questions; instead, they look to science...which is what I'm assuming why you call it an outdated concept? Instead, most people use modern day religious practices as a guide of behavior, to which there is no 'expiration date' to be a good person is there? Is a person to be ridiculed if being a good person for them was due to Hinduism rather than something they discovered on their own, if the end result is the same?

 

Who cares. Really.

I think it's an outdated concept for people who were born into a world of ignorance. Islam specifically at absolute terms

 

Where is the beauty in a black and white world?

In the sky. Please read the entire thread twice before posting.

I think it's an outdated concept for people who were born into a world of ignorance. Islam specifically at absolute terms

 

Where is the beauty in a black and white world?

 

Most people these days don't use religion as an answer to questions; instead, they look to science...which is what I'm assuming why you call it an outdated concept? Instead, most people use modern day religious practices as a guide of behavior, to which there is no 'expiration date' to be a good person is there? Is a person to be ridiculed if being a good person for them was due to Hinduism rather than something they discovered on their own, if the end result is the same?

 

Who cares. Really.

 

Where's the beauty in the world if you're forced to cover it with a hijab? ;) Maybe it's just me but I don't see discrimination versus women and homosexuals as "beautiful"

 

It's cute that you mentioned Hinduism. Do you find the Caste System that it supports to be beautiful too?

Also, your OP definition to terrorism doesn't work.

Acts of terrorism (defined here as attacks against civilians by substate actors with the intent of achieving a political goal)

Terrorism and Terrorists are two different things. The first definition given defines Terrorist - people that commit or support acts of terrorism. The second definition given, terrorism, includes harming civilians (among other things) to achieve political goals. People that support terrorism, under the first definition, are terrorists.

 

I don't see them comparing the studies, I might have missed it, but they mention the other study but never have a section dedicated to comparing. And still, where's the control? Where's the section that tells how they went about their random selection? How do you think a couple hundred to a thousand or two in each area is representative?

That's because you haven't look at the source at all.

... This is the second wave of surveys: the first was conducted in late 2006 and early 2007. The research was primarily supported by the START Consortium at the University of Maryland. Other scholars of the START Consortium participated in the development of the questionnaire for both waves.

In addition to the major surveys in Egypt, Indonesia, and Pakistan funded by the START program, WorldPublicOpinion.org was polling around the world in summer, 2008, under separate funding. This project enabled the inclusion of 27 parallel items in its polling of four additional majority-Muslim nations as well as the Muslim population of Nigeria.

In addition focus groups were conducted in Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia and Jordan over the course of the two waves.

(emphasis mine)

 

 

 

 

Another thing is the sample size, 10 people would not be enough to make a claim about the whole of the muslim religion. Its just too big a claim for something that small to be enough, I would say in this case you would need 500k samples at least for accuracy. (Yes you can mathematically show it with 10 people however it is very easy to find 10 people on a bad day who hate america).

In most cases, 500-2000 Muslims were polled in each country. These sample sizes are more than adequate for the claims they're making. 500k is a ridiculous sample size, and I hope you never use that as an answer on a standardized test on statistics (unless the expected or known probability is extraordinarily low).

 

 

 

It sucks when things like these studies, which are studies on human nature, are used as excuses for personal agendas (not you, sees_all, but the people who pay for studies such as these).

Judging by the language of the study, I'd say they're biased in the other direction, that Muslims denounce terrorism.

Large majorities in many of the countries polled specifically denounce the use of attacks on American civilians, whether in the US or in a Muslim country. Asked whether they approved, disapproved, or had mixed feelings about attacks on civilians in the United States, 84 percent disapproved of such attacks in Egypt, 73 percent in Indonesia, and 55 percent in Pakistan. Attacks on US civilians working for US companies in Islamic countries are also rejected though a by a slightly lower margin: 85 percent of Egyptians disapproved, as did 68 percent of Indonesians and 48 percent of Pakistanis.

 

However, this rejection of attacks on civilians has softened somewhat since 2007 in Indonesia and Pakistan. In Indonesia, 48 percent now disapprove strongly of attacks on civilians in the USdown 10 points; and in Pakistan overall disapproval has dropped 3-4 points on both questions.

Notice the numbers they're highlighting in the study. Their language highlights that a "Large majority denounces", rather than a "small minority supports".

Judging by the language of the study, I'd say they're biased in the other direction, that Muslims denounce terrorism.

 

I'm not talking about the study but those who will twist its words. Already one prominent media figure tried to do it, who is next? No matter how many people will advocate what you just said, because the news thrives on negativity any correction and truth is downplayed. These studies are destined for misuse.

This thread is too funny, I think because everyone involved is so emersed in their position, they can't see outside of it. It looks pretty clear to me you guys are kind of saying the same thing.

 

 

Side 1: The sky is blue.

 

Side 2: NO ITS NOT ITS THE OPPOSITE OF ORANGE

 

Side 1: WELL YOUR WRONG ITS CLEARLY BLUE TO ME

 

Side 2:WELL IM LOOKING RIGHT HERE AT A COLOR WHEEL AND ITS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF ORANGE

 

 

Both Sides (said in comical unison): ARE YOU STUPID?

 

 

----------

 

The issue, as I'm seeing it, is there is a fundamental issue with this debate. If you look at it one way, you guys aren't really debating the same topic even. If you look at it the other way, you guys are kinda following the above 5 lines, even if they were satirical.

 

 

But I've not read the Koran myself on this, and even though my parents say every Muslim is taught to hate America, I don't think I'll take their word for it.

We don't. It's just another stupid stereotype.

That the sky is blue? I know right.