She should not have asked that question

u8myufo

u8myufo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
19,354
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Brilliant response,and please lets not go off track with this one.

 
A very interesting watch.
Does annoy me that she said 3000 Americans died on Sept. 11th though.
Almost 400 of them weren't Americans.
 
Brilliant.:)
 
viv1969 said:
A very interesting watch.
Does annoy me that she said 3000 Americans died on Sept. 11th though.
Almost 400 of them weren't Americans.
Click to expand...
She actually said 'almost 3000 Americans' to be pedantic.
 
Good answer, but she can't half go on. Why use one sentence when...
:runaway:
 
I'd like to see her on Question Time...
 
bindex said:
Good answer, but she can't half go on. Why use one sentence when...
:runaway:
Click to expand...

Because one sentence isn't enough when you're making the point that things happen time after time after.....
 
She sure as hell came out fighting and made her point very well I thought.
 
POAH said:
what's the vid about, don't want to waste my 3G on it
Click to expand...

The irrelevance of the silent majority ... i.e. most don't want war, terrorism etc but it still happens with devastating regularity due to the vocal minority - in this instance Islamic Extremism.
 
For me there's no point listening after she says that "it is estimated" (code for "I just made it up") that 15-25% of all Muslims are "radicals". Let's leave aside the fact that this seems to be about double the decent estimates (and since we're talking about chunk of more than a billion people, 1% here or there really matters), it's really a question of what "radical" means.

In most sensible research, people are given questions about their attitudes to things such as drinking alcohol, stoning adulterers, mutilation for thieves etc and ask if they agree or not. Score over a certain number and you're a radical. Like all surveys, ask a different set of questions, change the order or fiddle with the cutoff and the percentage will vary wildly. However, she then says that the opposite of "radical" is "peaceful". Now personally, I don't think cutting the hands off thieves is the way a civilised society behaves. But that's a whole world away from "anybody who doesn't believe that must be killed" or "I think I'll go and massacre a few people who don't agree with me". Her own views are clearly radical - and yet nobody would suggest that even she is going to go and massacre people (well, they might, she stirs up strong opinions....).

But basically, 2m20s in she violates Godwin's law. Then she attacks somebody for asking a question. That's what passes for intelligent debate these days.
 
JonathanRyan said:
For me there's no point listening after she says that "it is estimated" (code for "I just made it up") that 15-25% of all Muslims are "radicals". Let's leave aside the fact that this seems to be about double the decent estimates (and since we're talking about chunk of more than a billion people, 1% here or there really matters), it's really a question of what "radical" means.

In most sensible research, people are given questions about their attitudes to things such as drinking alcohol, stoning adulterers, mutilation for thieves etc and ask if they agree or not. Score over a certain number and you're a radical. Like all surveys, ask a different set of questions, change the order or fiddle with the cutoff and the percentage will vary wildly. However, she then says that the opposite of "radical" is "peaceful". Now personally, I don't think cutting the hands off thieves is the way a civilised society behaves. But that's a whole world away from "anybody who doesn't believe that must be killed" or "I think I'll go and massacre a few people who don't agree with me". Her own views are clearly radical - and yet nobody would suggest that even she is going to go and massacre people (well, they might, she stirs up strong opinions....).

But basically, 2m20s in she violates Godwin's law. Then she attacks somebody for asking a question. That's what passes for intelligent debate these days.
Click to expand...

Godwins Law pertains to online discussion, not live debate, so she "violates" nothing.
 
viv1969 said:
Godwins Law pertains to online discussion, not live debate, so she "violates" nothing.
Click to expand...

OK. Attacking somebody for asking a question violates the laws of decent behaviour. Especially when you spend the rest of the time spinning half truths and unsubstantiated numbers as fact.

Does that mean I can mention that some commentators have compared Ms Gabriel to Goebbels?
 
Oooh, are we all copying and pasting now? Excellent!! :-)

Godwin's law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an Internet adage, asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1", that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Natizm."
 
Got to admit that I thought the question was a lot more intelligent and interesting than the answer. Saying something loudly and forcefully does not make it true.
 
AHILL said:
if you cant be arsed watching the vid why should we go out of our way to tell you what its about?
Click to expand...

You're wasting your proverbial breath. :-)
 
AHILL said:
if you cant be arsed watching the vid why should we go out of our way to tell you what its about?
Click to expand...

I said didn't want to waste my 3g data on my phone watching it not that I couldn't be arsed. please make sure you actually read posts properly before you reply to them so you don't look like a tit ;)
 
gramps said:
The irrelevance of the silent majority ... i.e. most don't want war, terrorism etc but it still happens with devastating regularity due to the vocal minority - in this instance Islamic Extremism.
Click to expand...

the ones that don't make the news - same things go for complaints, people will complain but won't praise.
 
POAH said:
I said didn't want to waste my 3g data on my phone watching it not that I couldn't be arsed. please make sure you actually read posts properly before you reply to them so you don't look like a tit ;)
Click to expand...

Pot, this is kettle. ....you're black.
 
viv1969 said:
Oooh, are we all copying and pasting now? Excellent!! :)

Godwin's law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an Internet adage, asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1", that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Natizm."
Click to expand...

Yes, I will copy and paste, if it is relevant, particularly as I have been pulled up a number of times in normal face to face discussion, when I have been accused of invoking "Godwin's rule".
I actually think that it is generally a pretty pathetic rule.
I should add that the same people accuse me of being "anti Semitic", when in fact I just have a problem with "extremist Zionism".
 
POAH said:
I said didn't want to waste my 3g data on my phone watching it not that I couldn't be arsed. please make sure you actually read posts properly before you reply to them so you don't look like a tit ;)
Click to expand...

Aaaah but you see I look in a mirror and see a good looking tit.
What exactly is your problem?
 
AHILL said:
Aaaah but you see I look in a mirror and see a good looking tit.
What exactly is your problem?
Click to expand...

nothing, just correcting the mistake you made in thinking I couldn't be arsed watching the vid. I think you are getting threads confused.
 
Could someone tell me what exactly POAH is saying? I cannot be arsed to read his posts :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top