user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : very significant, very worrying
However, I would not treat every Caucasion or Southerner as a "potential Klansman."
So no one feels like commenting and attaching a name to their vote? It's not a hard question.
Cath: why are you able to answer this ballot, but unable to answer one concerning muslim terrorists? Do you feel it is ok to criticize whites, but not predominately non-white muslims? Why the hypocrisy?
Voted : hat was a somewhat significant amount
Do you know how many Chinese people they would need to launder their sheets and robes?
As I mentioned in another ballot, Woodrow Wilson himself was a ardent supporter of the klan. Which must have been worrying.
"However, I would not treat every Caucasion or Southerner as a "potential Klansman.""
Actually I'm glad you brought up that strawman. Obviously this was a jab at me for criticizing muslims for their actions. I have never once claimed that all muslims are terrorists and should be treated as such. Instead I have said repeatedly (and the facts back me up) that too many muslims do support terrorism, and this is a cause for concern. One is too many really, but nearly 20 million in one country is really a problem. You disagreed and felt no concern over this.
You have however expressed 'very significant' concern over 4 million klansmen in the US, and I agree, that was too many and I'm glad we no longer live in those days. So I have been consistent in my argument that support for extremism, even if it is below a majority, when it consists of millions of people is cause for concern. You have been extremely incsonsistent by expressing concern only over support for white christian terrorists, and not for any other terrorists. Why is support for islamic extremism by the millions ok, but support for white christan extremism is wrong?
Or, since you have recognized that this support is a problem, just as I have done with muslims, I could treat you by the same logic you treat me. IN other words cath, why are you saying that all whites are evil klansmen and deserved to be exterminated? By recognizing the support many had for the klan you are in fact acknowledging that every single one supported the klan and that you want them all dead. Why do you have this hatred for whites and christians?
Voted : very significant, very worrying
Some people (even today) treat all Southerners as 'potential Klansmen'.
BL: that's a good point.
And why? Because a minority of people supported these terrorists and the rest did little or nothing to stop them.
herz: I am unaware of any ballot that had this specific focus, involving Muslims.
If you ever asked "Do I believe that some percentage of extremists in the Muslim world is worrying?" I'd have no problem answering 'Yes.' BUT, with a similar caveat to what I added here.
Instead, the majority of your ballots dealing with Muslims strike me as trying to tar them all with a wide brush.
That's why the differenc ein my response rate, thanks for asking.
herzog, I do have concern over Muslim extremists. Just because you haev never worded a ballot in such a way as to not tar all Muslims does not imply otherwise.
Your ballots are framed to cast a wide shadow; this is why I fail to join your chorus.
As for 'never once claiming that all Muslims are terrorists' that is technically true. You operate on innuendo and implication, being very careful not to actually explicitly use the damning phrases. But scan your own ballot list and tell me if you think they represent any real 'focus.'
I also have to ask, herz ... WTF is your point, here? If you have *any* point other than to bash muslims, please elucidate ... because to say 'Do you think Muslim extremism is a Bad Thing (tm)' seems to be one of the most useless endeavors I can think of.
Cath you do realize the point. Go to ballot #103486
There people found that 10% of the populace supporting terrorism was 'trivial'. Here there is a significantly different response. In fact you were unable to come out against the islamic terrorists in that ballot, but right away condemning the klan. WHy do you suppose that is? Can you criticize muslims who support terrorism?
'herz: I am unaware of any ballot that had this specific focus, involving Muslims.'
Yes, you are, please don't lie to me again.
' If you ever asked "Do I believe that some percentage of extremists in the Muslim world is worrying?" I'd have no problem answering 'Yes.' BUT, with a similar caveat to what I added here.'
I did ask that, and you did have a problem answering. Please, don't lie to me again.
' Instead, the majority of your ballots dealing with Muslims strike me as trying to tar them all with a wide brush. '
I have never claimed all muslims are terrorists and you admit this. Please, don't lie to me again.
'herzog, I do have concern over Muslim extremists. Just because you haev never worded a ballot in such a way as to not tar all Muslims does not imply otherwise. '
I have never worded a ballot in such a way as to tar all muslims, again with the lying.
' Your ballots are framed to cast a wide shadow; this is why I fail to join your chorus'
You interpret them, mostly by putting words in to my mouth, to include all muslims, they do not do this by themselves. For instance, if I were to add a bunch of paragraphs to your ballots that you never wrote, use your failure to answer as an affirmation, and interpreting things as I wished I could no doubt prove that you want all the jews dead, or believe that we should have only one party in the US, or any such nonsense. But I don't do this to you, please don't do it to me.
'As for 'never once claiming that all Muslims are terrorists' that is technically true. You operate on innuendo and implication, being very careful not to actually explicitly use the damning phrases. But scan your own ballot list and tell me if you think they represent any real 'focus.''
I point out when they screw up, you believe this should be censored and we should only attack white christian republicans. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
herz: First, re. "Yes, you are, please don't lie to me again."
Unless you are psychic, you are out of line to say that. Whether you have or not is one matter -- you will note that I did not say 'You never posts such a ballot.' I very specifically said that *I* was unaware of one -- this includes my memory as a factor.
So unless you can read my mind and know exactly what I do or do not remember (factoring in the relative importance I place on memorizing every ballot you post), then I would thank you to get off your knee-jerk horse and stop making unwarranted accusations.
As for did you ever ask that -- again, I am unaware of you ever having done so. My general recollection of your Muslimn related ballots falls very neatly into [quote:Attempting to stir up animosity towards Muslims and re-emphasise them as 'enemies.'
That is *my* recollection.
Feel free to provide an example to show that is just a majority impression and not 'all inclusive.'
No cath, it was a lie, because you actually commented on ballot 103486, which had this exact focus for muslims. Unless you are now claiming you didn't read the ballot at all and simply wrote down a generic attack against me, you have seen such a ballot and to claim othewise is a lie.
Prove to me how claiming one thing when you know it to be the opposite of the truth is not a lie and I will retract my statement.
Re. "I have never claimed all muslims are terrorist." See my previous reference to craven use of innuendo and implication.
That is the general impression I get from reading your ballots. And before you dust off your cute rhetorical catch- phrase, let me remind you that this is *my* impression. I ain't lying to ya.
So you're first two comments are lies.
The rest is extremely biased opinion substantiated by nothing.
Strong case you have there.
But you really can't just disregard statistics this way. You can't just dismiss a segment of the population as irrelvant in overall percentages. The fact is, if the population of the country was 100 million at the time, and the KKK had about 4-5 million members (which can you please provide where you got that stat) then in reality, the percentage of the population that was a member of the KKK was about 4-5%. The reason why you cannot deduct out the minorities as you do in your ballot description is because in fact, they are part of the overall demographic make-up and therefore, part of the equation.
Besides, how would they know the total memberhsip in the KKK was 4-5 million? Census data would not capture that stat and its very doubtful they could ever really quantify that number, especially in the 1920's, when technology and communications were barely existent.
And finally -- "I point out when they screw up, you believe this should be censored and we should only attack white christian republicans."
1. What do you hope to achieve by singling out individual people who are purported to have acted egregiously and also happen to be Muslim? I can see nothing to be gained, except for trying to establish some over-arching connection. And because your associations are so loose, yes, I object to this. You do a lousy job, IMO, of providing adequate specificty to your implications.
2. I bash white Christian Republicans? herzog, when have I ever tried to make an over-arching case about these perpetrators being white? Or Christian?
Don't blow smoke.
As for being Republican -- hell yes! And I do so because I *do* see an overarching association with that group. Further, I am disgusted when they and their surrogates/ apologists feel the need to 'play the victim' in an effort to avoid accountability for their actions.
I just went to that other ballot and it was pointed out that in fact, it is not 10% of the population of Indonesia. One comment showed that it is actually about 8.5%. Not a big difference per se, but still, it is less than the 10% claimed.
So 'please don't whine or dissemble to me again.'
I will say that in sheer numbers though, 4-5 million of any extremist group, in any country, is not easily discounted. I have to say that in general, yes, this would concern me. As for the other ballot, that too concerns me, since several million radical anythings should worry us.
Say what you want about the klan but their sheets are always whiter than white.
by IC on Fri Oct 20, 06 6:57pm
[+]
Voted : 10% is not significant, if it came back to it's prior strength I wouldn't be concerned at all
Its called group think.
Beauregarde- "I just went to that other ballot and it was pointed out that in fact, it is not 10% of the population of Indonesia. One comment showed that it is actually about 8.5%. Not a big difference per se, but still, it is less than the 10% claimed."
- Actually, on that ballot herzog never claimed that '10% of all Indonesians'. He said specifically '10% of all Muslim Indonesians', as not all Indonesians are Muslim. There was no inconsistency in his remarks. Calculating the percentage for what it would be for the entire Indonesian population does not discredit the statistic for the specifically Muslim Indonesians (of which it was clearly stated in his ballot that it was specifically stated of what the percentage was of 10% was referring to).
Anyway, to answer the ballot question here: I would think that data seems to indicate a significant minorty.
Excuse me Socrates but Herzog can speak for himself. Instead of replying to the posts of others, maybe try letting people alone and answer the ballot question. I neither asked for, nor care to hear your opinion.
His ballot said "Does 10% consitute a significant level of support that is worrying and should be carefully watched, or is it trivial?"
The other ballot says 1 in 10 Muslims. But the Muslims of Indonesia are Indonesian, so it is erroneous to segment them out in an overall demographic analysis. You can say that 10% of the Muslim population believes in using violence but in the finaly analysis, that makes up only about 8% of the total population of Indonesia, as one comment points out.
Please do not speak for someone else again. It is rude, extremely annoying and does nothing but bolster rumors of who you really are. My suggestion is for you to concern yourself with your own ballots and comments you personally make on other ballots, and to let the rest of us have a direct relationship with the ballot maker, should clarification of what he/she meant, etc. Your intrusion into other people's comments and your need to speak for others is an issue.
I in fact never said there were inconsistencies with his remarks in that ballot, did I? Since you are so focused on my comment, perhaps you can pull out for me my exact words in which I say there are inconsistencies? Can you do that for us?
This ballot is on the KKK, isn't it? So lets keep it on track.
You know, the more thought I give this, I really do find it very odd that you would insinuate yourself into my comment and actually take the time to go back to that other ballot, then return to this one to comment, incorrectly I might add, on my comment. That is really bizzare behavior. I'm very sorry, but who are you? You clearly have an unhealthy obsession with going around clarifying Herzog's point for him and it is almost like you are his advocate or spokesperson or something. Really freaky. Listen, lets establish some ground rules Socrates : Please don't ever engage with me and I will do the same with you. You give me the willies.
Herzog : I enjoy your ballots and even if we don't see eye-to-eye, I prefer to deal with you direct. You may want to tell Socrates that he's embarassing you and himself with his fixation.
Let it be known, there was no attempt to compare 'Indonesians' to 'Americans'. No direct comparision between two nationalities but rather a generalisation between two completely different types of groups: 'Americans' and 'Muslim Indonesians'. The issue was merely whether 10% was a significant minority. Anyway, I don't want to get into this any further. I've only continued talking about this because I was directly asked.
"But the Muslims of Indonesia are Indonesian, so it is erroneous to segment them out in an overall demographic analysis."
- Tell that to the Indonesian government- they force people to state their religion on their identity card.
"I'm very sorry, but who are you? You clearly have an unhealthy obsession with going around clarifying Herzog's point for him and it is almost like you are his advocate or spokesperson or something. Really freaky."
- I defend whomever or whatever I feel is defendable. The fact that it is herzog's ballot on this one is just coincidental. There have been a significant number of people that have been denouncing herzog's ballots (not you)- and fine they have every right to do so if they like. I also have the right to speak my opinion- and that goes for my opinion of ballots of any user. You ask if I am an advocate for herzog? No. But I have had similar cases where people wouldn't answer my ballot questions- so I speak my opinion also because I have had similar experiences concerning refusal to address my ballot questions. I have had my own problems with users not answering my own ballot questions, therefore my interest in their doing so to other users. As for his advocate? No. I disagree with him on a lot of issues (eg, I oppose the Iraq War and always have, I think Guantanamo Bay should be shut down, I would oppose any military action against Iran, as a few examples). Obsession? No. I do not contribute to all his ballots. If anything, it is a lot of his critics (not you) that seem to have an obsessive compulsion to comment on his ballots.
"You may want to tell Socrates that he's embarassing you and himself with his fixation."
- I have no fixation on herzog. I have a habit of butting in with my opinion on pretty much anything. On any issue, on any subject, in pretty much most contexts I state my opinion very openly and very frankly.
I don't see comments on public ballots as private conversations, so I do not hesitate to contribute my point of view also.
No Socrates. You're out of line. You're making a pest of yourself. How dare you speak for someone else and make assumptions. The comment in Herzog's other ballot is simply pointing out that in over all percentages, based on Indonesia's total population, it is in fact, less than 10%. It is your opinion, apparently, that this particular fact is not relevant. Why is that? It is in fact a very relevant point to make and is one I happen to agree with.
What I and others resent is your interference and your arrogant attitude that your opinion or your interpretation is somehow the final say. It is not, let me tell you. No where did I say that Herzog misrepresented anything, so I especially resent you saying I did.
Why don't you keep your nose out of other people's interactions if all you're going to do is make the wrong conclusions and insult people.
And yes, you do seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Herzog. I've read many of your recent comments and you seem more focused on going around acting like his mouthpiece than you do in actually contributing anything of value. Believe me, its evident that Herzog is incredibly bright and he does not need your pesty interference. I think you consider yourself to be the expert on all issues. You are not.
Beauregard- "No Socrates. You're out of line. You're making a pest of yourself. How dare you speak for someone else and make assumptions. The comment in Herzog's other ballot is simply pointing out that in over all percentages, based on Indonesia's total population, it is in fact, less than 10%. It is your opinion, apparently, that this particular fact is not relevant. Why is that? It is in fact a very relevant point to make and is one I happen to agree with."
- I simply stated my impression. You have pointed out my imperssion was wrong. That's okay.
"What I and others resent is your interference and your arrogant attitude that your opinion or your interpretation is somehow the final say. It is not, let me tell you. No where did I say that Herzog misrepresented anything, so I especially resent you saying I did."
- My impression of you suggesting that his ballot was misrepresented was false. Your impression that I believe my opinions / perspectives to be fact is also false. I believe my nonsensical rhetoric is merely a point of view. A point of view is something to be improved by stating what it is, and hopefully others will share theirs, and then I can learn if I am wrong. By you openly and frankly telling me these things, I am now realising my assumption was wrong. You wouldn't have been able to prove my assumption wrong if I didn't first state it. If there are others feeling the same as you are about me... then all I can say is that I have a greater respect for you for actually confronting me about it, whereas these others haven't. I appreciate that.
"Why don't you keep your nose out of other people's interactions if all you're going to do is make the wrong conclusions and insult people."
- I don't make any conclusions. I express my point of view, but no one's point of view is fact. All we can do is compare notes. Therefore by stating what I am thinking, it can be openly crtiqued. As for insulting people? I never strive to do that intentionally. If I have ever offended anyone, I apologise, that was never an intention.
"And yes, you do seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Herzog. I've read many of your recent comments and you seem more focused on going around acting like his mouthpiece than you do in actually contributing anything of value. Believe me, its evident that Herzog is incredibly bright and he does not need your pesty interference."
- I have only really stood up for herzog in recent comments. And that was only because I felt so many people were attacking him unjustly (not you), ones that follow him around and attack everything about his ballots without actually answering any questions (or even directly critiquing the posed question). Also, I have had some of my ballots criticised in a similar manner, so I have started to empathise, that's all. That is not an obsession- to attempt to defend one who is getting unjustly criticised in a similar way that I myself have started to also receive. So it is the general principle of it all, and not herzog.
"I think you consider yourself to be the expert on all issues. You are not."
- Of course I'm not.
^ Sorry, but I don't believe you. Lets just move on from this topic since it is detracting from Herzog's ballot topic.
Beau: I'm glad you enjoy my ballots, but I think you ought to cut socrates some slack. I agree with most of what he says, but he's hardly my mouth piece. We seee eye to eye on some issues and he clearly states when he agrees with me, and we disaguree on others, and he clearly states those opinions as well.
Lately some users have gone over the top in their insane rantings against me and have refused to address any question I pose to them, this is a very annoying and disturbing trend and it should concern every serious user.
I don't see socrates as trying to meddle (how can you meddle when a ballot is put out for the whole public to use and it invites responses?) I see him as trying to maintain a certain level of credibility and honesty on this site that is rapidly diminishing (and it was hardly rock solid before). So try to get along with socrates, he's one of the good ones, fair and rational at all times.
In any case, Beauregard was annoyed, and that was not my intention. I apologise.
Herz: A lie, because I commented on an earlier ballot?
Please stop your knee from jerking and actually read what I wrote. Use both hands, if necessary.
What was the date of the ballot you cite? How many comments have I left on this site since then? Even though you may believe the earth revolves around you, and thus, every one remembers (neigh, even jots down for posterity) every pearl of prose you come up with, let me disuade you of that notion -- it does not.
And again I say, unless you can read my mind and are an expert on my memory, you either owe me an apology or risk being known as a boor.
If I disagree with you, herz, I will do so -- to your face, as I always have. 'Lying' to you would accomplish nothing. I do not dislike you but ... let's face it ... I don't care enough to lie, even if I was so disposed to do that in my personal life.
2. The topic you cite strikes me as fundamentally different than the one you pose here. Oh sure, the numbers are the same, so there may be a surface similarity. But I can't believe you'd be sloppy enough to believe the two topics are analogous.
1 in 10 Muslim Indonesians wish violence on the West ... why? You presume that it is for the same (or analogous) reasons the KKK hated blacks, conveniently ignoring the merest possibility that perhaps ... just perhaps ... the Indonesian Muslims might have other causes -- justified or not -- for their emotions (such as perceived US actions against Muslims, in the MidEast).
I really don't know if this is intentional sleight of hand or just sloppy thinking, clouded by ideology and biases, but it ticks me off. You should be better than that, in either case.
'herz: I am unaware of any ballot that had this specific focus, involving Muslims.
If you ever asked "Do I believe that some percentage of extremists in the Muslim world is worrying?" I'd have no problem answering 'Yes.' BUT, with a similar caveat to what I added here.'
You had just responded on a ballot exactly like this, but for muslims and you did have a problem answering it. A mere three days prior to your comment on here.
So unless you have a pretty severe case of alzheimer's you do know of a ballot of mine that fit your description (which you claimed otherwise) and you did refuse to respond to the question (which you claimed otherwise). So you are a liar.
But please, do explain to me how someone who says something they know to be false is not a liar.
For instance: if I were to say that I know for a fact that clintons reactors were used to make kims nuclear weapons would that make me A) an honest person, or B) a liar?
Tsk. I'd hoped ideological blinders wouldn't prevent you from seeing things that are relatively obviuosu, herz.
1. The ballots are not anywhere near identical. They have some surface similarities, but equating them is erroneous.
2. Three days? How many comments/ threads was I involved in in that interim? The lack of any real association (beyond misleading surface appearances) no doubt helped in my failing to associate it.
Believing to the point of certainty that I remembered that particular thread *and* associated it with this one is an exercise in hubris.
|
|
