18 Feb 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHe's been charged with beheading his wife. Not the same as 'he beheaded his wife'. Can you tell the difference? Do you understand why it matters?
was the man a Muslim? did he behead his wife?
Assuming his guilt to conclude 'Islam is a scourge' is thoroughly mendacious.
Journalism consists in reporting facts and making interpretations based on facts; altering a source to suit your point of view is making up stories, at best.
So Dr Scribbles has twisted the reported facts to promote the punchline: 'Islam is a scourge'. He's a fabulous fabulist.
18 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagewhinge whinge! perhaps the police report and subsequent charge was based on the fact that her leg had fallen off, or that her head simply rolled off - yes its alleged, but the charge is quite specific and must relate to at least some tangible evidence, do you understand the difference?
He's been charged with beheading his wife. Not the same as 'he beheaded his wife'.
18 Feb 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, the maxim 'innocent until proven guilty' is merely a whinge.
whinge whinge! perhaps the police report and subsequent charge was based on the fact that her leg had fallen off, or that her head simply rolled off - yes its alleged, but the charge is quite specific and must relate to at least some tangible evidence
Dr. Scribbles has set up his own little kangaroo court; you are a very special kangaroo.
18 Feb 09
2 edits
Although one must question the alleged method of execution! For is it not a particularly Islamic method or at very least an Eastern method. Yes it has been used in the west in past times, however if a dude wants to kill his wife, why behead her? is it not enough to shoot her? Yes he is guilty, boing boing!
18 Feb 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRoll the cameras, it's CSI ... Perhaps it was the irony-relishing Dr Scribbles seeking to discredit Islam ...
Although one must question the alleged method of execution! For is it not a particularly Islamic method or at very least an Eastern method. Yes it has been used in the west in past times, however if a dude wants to kill his wife, why behead her? is it not enough to shoot her?
18 Feb 09
Originally posted by Jigtieyes its a very valid point! the difference may be rather more subtle, for example we may wish to take a piece of literature and rearrange it or to put it in a different context from that which it was originally in, in order to put a different perspective upon it or to express our own point of view, can this be construed as lying?
What is misrepresenting if not promoting a lie?
18 Feb 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieApparently.
was the man a Muslim?
did he behead his wife?
Quite possibly.
is this not a reprehensible act?
Yes.
should one not call into question the validity of a religious stance which allows such?
Yes one should, but as yet we only have your word for it that that is the case. The article does not say that. DoctorScribbles does not say that. And nobody has provided a single reference to that effect.
So we are left with DoctorScribbles making the following claim:
Muslim man beheads wife therefore Islam is a scourge.
Now how does that differ from:
Mormon man molests Children therefore Mormonism is a scourge.
And SwissGambit provided even more examples yet I don't hear you or DoctorScribbles agreeing with him.
I do not agree nor condone lying, i am a Christian, Christ stood for truth, never uttered a lie, and is my hero because of it!
But you seem quite willing to over look lying if it is in your favor.
18 Feb 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs I said before, if the edited document is deliberately portrayed as being factual when it is not, then yes, it is lying.
yes its a very valid point! the difference may be rather more subtle, for example we may wish to take a piece of literature and rearrange it or to put it in a different context from that which it was originally in, in order to put a different perspective upon it or to express our own point of view, can this be construed as lying?
18 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't know. Misrepresenting is by definition the purposeful act of
yes its a very valid point! the difference may be rather more subtle, for example we may wish to take a piece of literature and rearrange it or to put it in a different context from that which it was originally in, in order to put a different perspective upon it or to express our own point of view, can this be construed as lying?
putting something in a light that won't do it justice, hence the prefix:
"mis". To do that, is promoting a lie, no matter what his intentions.
If he has a point of view he wish to get across, and his view is valid, he
need but present the facts and relax, for things will sort themselves out
from there. Seems to me that when you need to misrepresent in order
to present a coherent argument, you're wrong and need to re-evaluate
your point of view.
But that's just me.
18 Feb 09
Originally posted by Jigtieperhaps misrepresent was too strong a term, perhaps reinterpret is a more accurate one, for the former certainly, like you say, may be indicative of a nefarious motive, the latter necessary to portray a certain perspective or give a certain colouring or flavouring which in itself may not be.
I don't know. Misrepresenting is by definition the purposeful act of
putting something in a light that won't do it justice, hence the prefix:
"mis". To do that, is promoting a lie, no matter what his intentions.
If he has a point of view he wish to get across, and his view is valid, he
need but present the facts and relax, for things will sort thems ...[text shortened]... rgument, you're wrong and need to re-evaluate
your point of view.
But that's just me.
18 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadit does not differ in the slightest, all these acts are reprehensible are they not? Now to the question of the validity of a particular religious stance, for if the religion cannot prevent such or is conducive to the perpetration of such, or condones such, then i state that it is nothing but a form of devotion, an unreality in the mind of initiate with his actions proving its ineptness and emptiness!
Apparently.
[b]did he behead his wife?
Quite possibly.
is this not a reprehensible act?
Yes.
should one not call into question the validity of a religious stance which allows such?
Yes one should, but as yet we only have your word for it that that is the case. The article does not say that. DoctorScribbles does not say that. hero because of it![/b]
But you seem quite willing to over look lying if it is in your favor.[/b]
If i am a Christian, are not my actions reflective by its very nature of the ethos that i have adopted? Should not one be allowed to challenge this ethos based on my actions?
And while the Docs portrayal in itself does not establish that Islam is a scourge, it is never the less indicative of its practitioners!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/default.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7895485.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7896942.stm
what have they in common?
18 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCause and effect. I am atheist. I smack down a priest unprovoked.
it does not differ in the slightest, all these acts are reprehensible are they not? Now to the question of the validity of a particular religious stance, for if the religion cannot prevent such or is conducive to the perpetration of such, or condones such, then i state that it is nothing but a form of devotion, an unreality in the mind of initiate ...[text shortened]... _east/7895485.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7896942.stm
what have they in common?
Therefore all atheists are idiots? I think not. What caused me to smack
down the priest is what you should look at, not my non-religious conviction.
Hence, you cannot proclaim that the religion of Islam made him do this,
unless you can prove to us that it is indeed his religious convictions that
caused him to behead his wife.
Yes?
Could be he's just an idiot.