Gallup's Mirror

[Gallup’s Mirror]

So that brings me to another question. Is islamaphobia real? Or do you perhaps feel this is in fact a term made up by apologists in order to allow Muslims “play the victim”.

“So, [Ayaan Hirsi Ali] was going to speak at Brandeis [University], but she called Islam the new fascism, so they said she could not speak. And they said she is Islamophobic, who my friend Sam Harris reminded me today our deceased friend Christopher Hitchens said Islamophobic is a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.” –Bill Mahar

I’m starting to think that maybe there is something to this claim of islamphobia. I personally don’t agree with Islam as a religion; but I don’t support generalising Muslim people or anyone else as a whole. I just don’t see how stereotyping an entire group is accomplishing anything; apart from the fact that it highlights ignorance.

Islam is not a people, race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. Islam is a set of ideas (bad ones). Yet the charge of islamophobia is leveled as though comparable to homophobia, racism and misogyny, the words used to describe prejudice against LGBT people, blacks or women.

Islam is no more immutable than phrenology. But phrenolophobia has yet to enter the English lexicon and nobody calls you a bigot for disparaging phrenology or saying phrenologists are foolish to believe in it.

The word Islamophobic is used to shut down critics like Ayaan Hirsi Ali with the false and unethical charge that criticism of Islam is hateful.

[Gallup’s Mirror]

…something that’s literally not nude is.

Yeah.

Sometimes I say it out loud two or three times, just to make myself feel crazy.

[Gallup’s Mirror]

Strega wrote:

@bellerose hey! We don’t all use you! Well, we use your posts to cheer ourselves up because they’re great :). Let it go, honey.

+1

Strega is right, Belle. I appreciate who you are and I enjoy your posts. A lot of us do.

[Gallup’s Mirror]

Rage quit. Nice.

Don’t let the screen door smack you in the ass on your way out, Bob.

[Gallup’s Mirror]

umar wrote:

It is not my field. @gallupsmirror may try to explain.

It is lawful to link to copyrighted materials but not to infringing materials. By law, links to infringing materials technically must be removed upon discovery of the site manager or upon notice from the copyright holder. Usually it’s the originating site (not the site with links pointing to it) that gets this notice or takes this action. Read this for more details.

Google’s definition of nudity includes:

“While we recognize that interpretations of adult or mature content may vary across countries and cultures, we hold all publishers accountable to the same content requirements so that we can ensure a safe and healthy global advertising ecosystem. If you’re unsure about whether or not something might be considered adult content, our general rule of thumb is this: if you wouldn’t want a child to see the content or you would be embarrassed to view the page at work in front of colleagues, then you should not place ad code on it.”

“Google ads may not be placed on content that is sexually suggestive and/or intended to cause sexual arousal. Examples of content that may be considered sexually gratifying include, but are not limited to:

close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches
sheer or see-through clothing or lingerie
strategically covered nudity (includes situations in which genitals are blurred out by camera)
images of men or women posing and/or undressing in a seductive manner”

I would add that that it’s safe to assume an image displaying body parts that would be covered by typical bathing suits would be considered an image of nudity. Probably the best test we have here at AZ is that Google cuts off our advertising when one of their crawlers decides we’re showing nudes, but naturally we don’t want it getting to that point.

• This reply was modified 10 years, 10 months ago by Gallup's Mirror.
• This reply was modified 10 years, 10 months ago by Gallup's Mirror. Reason: added the words 'that would be'

[Gallup’s Mirror]

I know the [poisoning the well] fallacy well enough to understand…

You really don’t. Poisoning the well is a preemptive ad hominem. My criticism was neither.

…that you’re basically criticizing the provider of the chart rather than the chart itself. I guess that’s a combination of an ad hominem and poisoning the well.

Ad hominem is fallacious in dismissing an argument on the basis of some irrelevant claim about the person making the argument. The operative word is that the criticism is irrelevant.

Lack of scientific qualifications and conflict of interest are valid criticisms and completely relevant. This is why it’s reasonable to refuse Uncle Goober’s offer to remove your appendix merely because he is not a surgeon, and why Exxon-Mobile is a poor choice to educate the public on the science of human-caused climate change.

[Gallup’s Mirror]

It’s worse than that, Stutz. [Gallup is] conflating murder in general with all deaths (including suicides, defensive shootings, and accidents) using a specific type of device.

I am saying ‘murder in general’ includes gun murders, and the study specifies that gun murders are included as a gun related death. I have stressed and restated this at least half a dozen times.

1. Steve: Yeah, well Unseen said “murder rate” instead of “firearms deaths” so you haven’t in fact rebutted his point. Gallup: In fact, I have, unless you can demonstrate that the research excludes murder and only includes instances like non-criminal killings and suicides.

2. Steve: You’re still trying to equate firearms deaths…i.e., any homicide with a firearm, including self defense and suicide as well as murders, with murders committed by any means… Gallup: I’m equating the rate of gun ownership and murder rates with the rate of gun ownership and murder rates;

3. Gallup: You’re not suggesting that “firearm related deaths” exclude murder or that such murders are not part of the aggregate murder rate? Steve: I make no such claim.

4. My claim is that the study found higher rates of firearm ownership were “a strong and independent predictor” of firearm related deaths (including murder).

5. The study includes murder by type of firearm, specifying; “assault by handgun discharge (X93); assault by rifle, shotgun, and larger firearm discharge (X94); assault by other and unspecified firearm discharge (X95);”. See page 2 under ‘Sources’.

6. The explanation in the study includes murder.

To refute the “strong correlation” found in the study, you must either prove that a death due to “assault by handgun discharge” in the 27 surveyed countries does not count as a murder, or that the results found no corresponding change in murders committed using guns (despite a specific statement which includes such murders in describing what constitutes gun related death for the purposes of the study).

[Gallup’s Mirror]

Unseen wrote:

You have no answer for the chart other than to poison the well.

I’ve already answered. You don’t know what poisoning the well means. It is not logically fallacious to point out a conflict of interest. Gun rights activism is not epidemiology.

Yes, Gallup, but you have no answer!!! Say it again, Unseen. I double dare you.

[Gallup’s Mirror]

Belle: It does matter. You cannot make a sweeping generalization on this issue. The problem (and the solutions) are not uniform cookie cutter that can be the same in all places. A more regional approach makes sense in tackling this issue AND in understanding it.

Unseen: You don’t understand what this thread is about, then. I’m REFUTING the sweeping generalization that there is a correlation between gun ownership and murder rate.

Assumption fallacy.

A generalization means taking a position using a very small statistical sample. The research I posted cited data obtained from 27 countries with a collective population well into the hundred millions. Epidemiology on a scale so vast is not a sweeping generalization.

Refuted it? You won’t even acknowledge it.

I’m saying generalizations don’t bear up under scrutiny.

Dishonest paraphrasing.

Unseen is saying there is “no relationship whatsoever” between rates of gun ownership and murder, a claim which is scientifically untrue.

@Belle
The reactions of some participants in this thread resemble religious fanaticism, only the dogma is ideological. Rational discourse is impossible when someone is so uncritical of a sacred cow that not even scientific research causes any doubt in his mind.

[Gallup’s Mirror]

Gallup: …you started fantasizing that our respective positions are reversed; paraphrasing with dishonest euphemisms that my point has failed (“GM’s last stand!”) despite your own failure to rebut it.
Unseen: Yada yada yade.

Willful ignorance. You can’t rebut, so you must avoid…

Bush on the deck of the aircraft carrier.

…and lie.

[Gallup’s Mirror]

So GM’s last stand would be a poisoning of the well.

Pointing out a conflict of interest is neither a logical fallacy nor a poisoning of the well. The political dogma surrounding gun rights is just as stupid as any religious dogma.

I knew you were out of ammunition when I saw how short your post was. LOL

Face it, Unseen. You got your brains beaten out. I knew it when you started fantasizing that our respective positions are reversed; paraphrasing with dishonest euphemisms that my point has failed (“GM’s last stand!”) despite your own failure to rebut it.

[Gallup’s Mirror]

That conclusion [published in a clinical research study in the American Journal of Medicine] flies in the face of the studies I showed.

You did not produce a study. You referred to data on two Wikipedia pages, one showing homicide rates by country and the other showing gun ownership rates by country. The analysis and explanation of what they mean is your own. That is why your conclusion is wrong.

As I write this I am the only one in this discussion who has produced an actual study published in a leading peer-reviewed scientific journal.

[Gallup’s Mirror]

Have you ever known a person who believes ‘just in case’ I think its called the Religious Insurance Policy. They don’t believe because they want to they believe because they want to play it safe.

I’ve never known anyone like that. Religious Insurance Policy is Pascal’s wager by another name. It doesn’t work. The problem is that a sincere belief in God is all but impossible to muster. For instance, could you ever make yourself genuinely believe in leprechauns, no matter how badly you wanted to do it?

[Gallup’s Mirror]

You got the first one wrong. Just take off the conclusion part (“so…”) and you have it. It’s an attack on the person not what he says.

Without the explicit or implicit claim that the “attack” is relevant to the target’s position or the topic at hand there is no logical fallacy. It also doesn’t have to be an attack; it could be a compliment.

“Mike won a Nobel Peace Prize so his opinion about war is useless.”

Or if you insist:

“Mike won the Nobel Peace Prize.”

From the OED: “(Of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining”.

[Gallup’s Mirror]

Matt wrote:

Someone mentioned that they like cardio because of the high that accompanies it. I’ve never been able to achieve this. I always end up hot, sweaty, and generally unhappy after cardio exercise. So I’m wondering, under what circumstances do/did you achieve the cardio high? Is it something that, maybe, not everyone gets?

The medical science is legit.

Cycling does it for me. If I push myself hard, but not too hard, I get a rush, a feel-good high, after about 45 minutes. Riding a long uphill works best. The feeling lasts half an hour, then gently fades into a sort of good mood.

It doesn’t work every time but I wish it did.

[Author]

Posts