White terrorist kills muslims with car

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-25-2017, 07:50 PM)Dill Wrote: But some white people also say their anger at Muslims is not about race. It's about religion.

I would all people would say that as islam is a religion, not an ethnicity.  Words have meanings, kindly learn them.  Also, it wouldn't be anger about muslims, it would be anger about the actions of some muslims that is directly the result of the teaching is islam.

[*michaelsean*]

In case anyone can't read code, it's a picture of yoda.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-26-2017, 01:52 PM)michaelsean Wrote: In case anyone can't read code, it's a picture of yoda.

Hah, it looked fine in the preview post.  Is gone now!

[Dill]

(06-26-2017, 01:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I would all people would say that as islam is a religion, not an ethnicity.  Words have meanings, kindly learn them.  Also, it wouldn't be anger about muslims, it would be anger about the actions of some muslims that is directly the result of the teaching is islam.

Gosh SSF, If other people think Islam is about race, why does that mean I need to "kindly" learn the meanings of words?

Are you saying some people are angry at about the "actions" of some Muslims that is "directly the result of the teachings of Islam," but their anger is not about religion? Perhaps you are referring to people who say Islam is not really a religion? Words have meanings. Maybe a few more would make this point clear.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-26-2017, 07:01 PM)Dill Wrote: Gosh SSF, If other people think Islam is about race, why does that mean I need to "kindly" learn the meanings of words?

Because you clearly think so as well.

Quote:Are you saying some people are angry at about the "actions" of some Muslims that is "directly the result of the teachings of Islam," but their anger is not about religion?

Nope, I'm saying it's not about race.  This isn't complicated, do try and keep up.

Quote:Perhaps you are referring to people who say Islam is not really a religion?

Nope, I've never commented on any such belief, ever.  Not sure where you pulled this thought out of, but I'm imagining a dark and unpleasant smelling place.  Islam is clearly a religion, I don't know anyone who has claimed otherwise.

Quote:Words have meanings. Maybe a few more would make this point clear.

Maybe?

[Dill]

(06-26-2017, 07:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Because you clearly think so as well.
Nope, I'm saying it's not about race.  This isn't complicated, do try and keep up.
Nope, I've never commented on any such belief, ever.  Not sure where you pulled this thought out of, but I'm imagining a dark and unpleasant smelling place.  Islam is clearly a religion, I don't know anyone who has claimed otherwise.
Maybe?

I've never had much success getting you to support your claims. Perhaps you cannot. To speak AS IF I "can't keep up" will be the best you can do.

But here are some dark and unpleasant smelling places, so you'll have the backstory if the subject of Islam-as-ideology-not-religion comes up again.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/02/28/geert-wilders-islam-not-religion-totalitarian-ideology/
https://sites.google.com/site/islamicthreatsimplified/a-religion-or-political-ideology
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/19/michael-flynn-called-islam-a-political-ideology-hiding-being-religion.html
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina40811.htm
https://www.politicalislam.com/
http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/abu-yehuda/islam-is-not-a-religion/2016/07/20/

The belief that "islam has quite adequately demonstrated that they are an ideology whose teaching should quite logically be feared by anyone who cherishes Western democratic and secular values then such fear cannot be considered unreasonable" is the currency on rightwing blogs and news sites.

Here is some context.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/02/03/why-do-so-many-americans-believe-that-islam-is-a-political-ideology-not-a-religion/?utm_term=.76b3224ef4af
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/03/trump-gorka-islam-not-religion-islamophobia/

[Vlad]

(06-25-2017, 07:52 PM)Dill Wrote: Welcome back Vlad.

Have you ever seen a news report that was "just facts"?

Yes of course....but I can understand why you would ask such question being your news source comes from Rachael Maddcow or Bill Maher.
The same news sources that James Hodgkinson relied on btw.

[Vlad]

(06-22-2017, 04:57 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL Did you favor us all by explaining your position "more than not at all"?

Sure, in liberal democracies, journalism is about informing voting citizens. That means, along with reporting the weather and sports, watching elected officials closely and often challenging their version of events--and also those events as represented in other news sources, since some may be more partisan than others. All that involves providing context and back story, and including contrary points of view.  It does not mean giving everyone a voice. It means editorial decisions play a central roll in what is reported and how. Nowhere is anyone reporting "just facts."

Journalism encompasses both opinions and facts.
Appears you're making no distinction between opinion columns/editorials and the reporting of current events, more commonly known as "the news".

Walter Kronkites todays media are not.
Point out what isn't fact Dill.

[Benton]

(06-26-2017, 11:41 PM)Vlad Wrote: Journalism encompasses both opinions and facts.
Appears you're making no distinction between opinion columns/editorials and the reporting of current events, more commonly known as "the news".

Walter Kronkites todays media are not.
Point out what isn't fact Dill.

part of the problem people have now is the belief stated here. Journalism doesn't include opinions. That's not journalism.

Whenever I do a workshop there's always one person who writes everything in first person. And I always use that as an example of what not to do as a story isn't about what the author feels or believes.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2017, 12:37 AM)Benton Wrote: part of the problem people have now is the belief stated here. Journalism doesn't include opinions. That's not journalism.

Yes!   I'm glad to see another person stating the obvious.  Warning, you will quickly be accused of preferring "Fox-style" journalism by some.  Or maybe not, seeing as how their outrage is amazingly selective.

[Dill]

(06-27-2017, 12:37 AM)Benton Wrote: part of the problem people have now is the belief stated here. Journalism doesn't include opinions. That's not journalism.

Whenever I do a workshop there's always one person who writes everything in first person. And I always use that as an example of what not to do as a story isn't about what the author feels or believes.

Just wondering, Benton. Would you say that journalistic decisions about what facts to include in a story or not, and further editorial decisions about what to include or not, could embed a viewpoint in journalism which was not "opinion"--even if only facts are reported in the article/report?

Also, if you think that is possible, is it possible that it could occur without journalists/editors being conscious of it?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2017, 01:21 AM)Dill Wrote: You said you didn't know where the notion that Islam is an ideology came from. So I provided you with a list of sources who, like you, call it an ideology.

Ideology and religion are heavily enmeshed, as I already stated.  Thank you for the bottomless repeats.  Semantic arguments are utterly boring and pointless, which might explain your preference for them.

Quote:If religion and ideology were "almost the same thing," then so many people would not be arguing they are not the same thing, and Islam is one not the other.  A moment ago you asserted "words have meaning, kindly learn them."

Yup, and I stand by them, as stated above.  I'll put it in grade school terms for you.  Not all ideology is religious, but all religion contains ideology.  

[Dill]

(06-26-2017, 11:41 PM)Vlad Wrote: Journalism encompasses both opinions and facts.
Appears you're making no distinction between opinion columns/editorials and the reporting of current events, more commonly known as "the news".
Walter Kronkites todays media are not.
Point out what isn't fact Dill.

Sure. Editorial decisions are not "facts." They are value judgments. Two abortion cases were decided on the day Roe vs Wade was decided, and in your video the other one (Doe vs Bolton) is not mentioned by name. There was a decision to emphasize one and not the other. 

Also, the editors selected who spoke for each side of the issue, and for how long.

Back when "liberal media bias" was the song of the fringe right, Walter Cronkite was the exemplar of it. To many he still is. http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-terrible-truth-about-walter-cronkite/

And what the fringe right complained about was not that there "weren't facts" in news reporting, but that the selection and ordering of facts influenced audience response positively or negatively even when no "opinion" was presented.

Now that the fringe right has become mainstream, the video of your 1973 CBS News announcement still raises the hackles of pro-life viewers.

http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2016/12/the-january-22-1973-roe-v-wade-decision-as-seen-through-the-eyes-of-cbs-news/#.WVHgHSkpDIU

Needless to say Herman, like Cronkite and all correspondents, only partially described the decision[s] accurately. Herman alluded to a second case but did not clarify that it was Roe’s companion case—Doe v. Bolton—that fleshed out the expansionary impact of what Roe meant.Three things stood out in Herman’s report, besides the initial error of reporting Roe as if it limited abortion to the first trimester.
One was a reference that later in pregnancy “the states may take legal action to protect the unborn child”! “Child”?
Second, the decision[s] “thus sets limits on the right to abortion on demand,” which, in fact, they did not.
Third, and this is key to understanding where Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe and Doe, was in 1973 (he became much more of an ardent feminist in later years), Herman reported, “In effect the court made abortions subject only to the decision of the pregnant woman’s doctor.” Not the woman, but “the pregnant woman’s doctor.”

[Dill]

(06-27-2017, 01:26 AM)TSociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ideology and religion are heavily enmeshed, as I already stated.  Thank you for the bottomless repeats.  Semantic arguments are utterly boring and pointless, which might explain your preference for them.

Yup, and I stand by them, as stated above.  I'll put it in grade school terms for you.  Not all ideology is religious, but all religion contains ideology.  

What you said was, "in almost every respect they are the same thing."  That's a bit more than "enmeshed," for it implies religion and ideology could be synonymous in many contexts. They are not, especailly where people and organizations are trying to discredit a religion by calling it an ideology.

Though religion and ethnicity may also be "heavily enmeshed," you earlier decided that Islam was not an ethnicity, and apparently don't believe that a "boring and pointless" distinction.

Since much misunderstanding results from unclear terminology, semantic clarification is a central part of any serious, and rigorous, philosophical, religious or scientific inquiry.  People carrying on serious discussions understand this. School children are bored by it.

[Vas Deferens]

We need to stop anyone with any sort of backwoods buttfracking religious leanings from entering our country and begin to cleanse our soiled soil of the one currently inhabiting them with their degenerate genes and disregard for knowledge and progress.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2017, 03:46 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: We need to stop anyone with any sort of backwoods buttfracking religious leanings from entering our country and begin to cleanse our soiled soil of the one currently inhabiting them with their degenerate genes and disregard for knowledge and progress.

How are we going to cleanse our soil of these people?  And you think these beliefs are due to bad genetics, Mr Scientist?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2017, 03:46 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: We need to stop anyone with any sort of backwoods buttfracking religious leanings from entering our country and begin to cleanse our soiled soil of the one currently inhabiting them with their degenerate genes and disregard for knowledge and progress.

(06-27-2017, 09:17 AM)michaelsean Wrote:  How are we going to cleanse our soil of these people?  And you think these beliefs are due to bad genetics, Mr Scientist?

Thankfully this is not necessary as Western society discovered the cure for this some time ago.  The answer to religious extremism is severe intolerance.  Not intolerance of religious belief itself, but intolerance of religious belief that leads to extremist behavior.  Is the Westboro Baptist church not roundly mocked and looked down upon.  Does anyone take them seriously?  

[GMDino]

(06-27-2017, 09:17 AM)michaelsean Wrote:  How are we going to cleanse our soil of these people?  And you think these beliefs are due to bad genetics, Mr Scientist?

Education would be a good start.  Reading, maybe.

Any book except the bible. 

[Benton]

(06-27-2017, 01:25 AM)Dill Wrote: Just wondering, Benton. Would you say that journalistic decisions about what facts to include in a story or not, and further editorial decisions about what to include or not, could embed a viewpoint in journalism which was not "opinion"--even if only facts are reported in the article/report?

Also, if you think that is possible, is it possible that it could occur without journalists/editors being conscious of it?

You put the facts out there — all of them — and let the reader make their own decision. Like giving someone a jigsaw puzzle. You give them all the pieces and the picture they make from it is their own, even if they force a few of the corners here and there. 

What you're asking is possible. I've had it happen to me (the one that always sticks out is I had an editor that was opposed to anything the local school board did, and he pretty well murdered everything I wrote to make them sound as bad as possible). But it should not happen, and the majority of reporters and editors are opposed to it. Just like putting an individual's beliefs into a story, that's not really journalism.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2017, 10:38 AM)GMDino Wrote: Education would be a good start.  Reading, maybe.

Any book except the bible. 

Cleansing the soil doesn't really seem synonymous with educating especially when you start talking about their degenerate genetics.