Woman beheaded in London

[Osomir]

I don't like leaping to unsubstantiated conclusions.
I value facts...and it's surprising how often my assumptions have been overturned by facts.

That doesn't stop me from having assumptions and prejudices, it's human nature, but I try, in my imperfect way, to keep as open a mind as possible.

This, and his assertions that this is only a "leftist" trait is actually very unfair to those who aren't "leftists".

I'm curious why he thinks that conservatives only base their opinions on assumptions and hearsay. That's just rude.

 

[idb]

You know what's really funny? I'll bet ten bucks that all of you leftists sincerely view yourselves as middle of the road centrist without ideological bias (you folks probably cannot define the term "ideology", either). Perhaps with the exception of idb, who seems to be more at peace with his own leftism. Meanwhile, all of you are, at a minimum, more sympathetic to Obama than his previous two opponents (or perhaps anyone from the Republican primaries). Still, you view yourselves as layered and complex, nuanced and uncategorisable. Too funny

Aww shucks.
"I yam what I yam!"

You deserve extra credit for seemingly being forthright about your own biases, as opposed to one like Osomir, who sees an objective post-bias 22nd century man of the future when he looks in the mirror.

The only bias I'm showing in this thread is an attempt not to leap to conclusions without facts.
Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[krych3k]

Aww shucks.
"I yam what I yam!"

You deserve extra credit for seemingly being forthright about your own biases, as opposed to one like Osomir, who sees an objective post-bias 22nd century man of the future when he looks in the mirror.

Link to me saying anything at all about my ideological structures outside of my standard when it comes to information gathering?

That's exactly the point, you don't need to explicitly state anything on the matter of ideology for you to be transparent. It's so obvious what your political point of departure is, yet you pride yourself in being (in your own mind) a sort of political enigma. You're not unique, you're not special, you're not post-ideology. In fact, you're quite ordinary and almost a caricature of a leftist. I see right through you, and I noticed it all within your first post.

 

[Osomir]

You deserve extra credit for seemingly being forthright about your own biases, as opposed to one like Osomir, who sees an objective post-bias 22nd century man of the future when he looks in the mirror.

Link to me saying anything at all about my ideological structures outside of my standard when it comes to information gathering?

That's exactly the point, you don't need to explicitly state anything on the matter of ideology for you to be transparent. It's so obvious what your political point of departure is, yet you pride yourself in being (in your own mind) a sort of political enigma. You're not unique, you're not special, you're not post-ideology. In fact, you're quite ordinary and almost a caricature of a leftist. I see right through you, and I noticed it all within your first post.

You need to work on your trolling.

 

[krych3k]

Aww shucks.
"I yam what I yam!"

You deserve extra credit for seemingly being forthright about your own biases, as opposed to one like Osomir, who sees an objective post-bias 22nd century man of the future when he looks in the mirror.

The only bias I'm showing in this thread is an attempt not to leap to conclusions without facts.
Why is that so hard to understand?

Again, it's an inability to apply knowledge that demonstrates your lack of wisdom. Murdering women via beheading in a place like London where the murderer's name is Aras Hussein makes it pretty obvious that the man is a Muslim. More basically, if you're not immediately assuming that a beheading in London (whether or not the victim is a female) was perpetrated by a Muslim, you're not applying knowledge. It's also possible that you can't apply knowledge you don't have, which may be the case if your primary news sources are the AP, CNN, the NYT and NPR.

 

[krych3k]

Link to me saying anything at all about my ideological structures outside of my standard when it comes to information gathering?

That's exactly the point, you don't need to explicitly state anything on the matter of ideology for you to be transparent. It's so obvious what your political point of departure is, yet you pride yourself in being (in your own mind) a sort of political enigma. You're not unique, you're not special, you're not post-ideology. In fact, you're quite ordinary and almost a caricature of a leftist. I see right through you, and I noticed it all within your first post.

You need to work on your trolling.

You're not nearly as nuanced and layered as you like to think. That's the point. You're transparently a leftist, although you view yourself as something else entirely. Hey, I'm not judging you. Self-delusion can be fun.

 

[krych3k]

I don't like leaping to unsubstantiated conclusions.
I value facts...and it's surprising how often my assumptions have been overturned by facts.

That doesn't stop me from having assumptions and prejudices, it's human nature, but I try, in my imperfect way, to keep as open a mind as possible.

This, and his assertions that this is only a "leftist" trait is actually very unfair to those who aren't "leftists".

I'm curious why he thinks that conservatives only base their opinions on assumptions and hearsay. That's just rude.

No. We apply knowledge. It's called wisdom. We don't throw darts randomly at the dartboard. We also don't sit and wait for a "journalist" to tell us what happened if we can connect the dots on our own. Oh wait, one needs a degree in Islamic studies from Columbia if he or she wants to (correctly) assume that this murder was perpetrated by a Muslim.

 

[idb]

So you and Osomir live in the same forest, I see.

I don't like leaping to unsubstantiated conclusions.
I value facts...and it's surprising how often my assumptions have been overturned by facts.

That doesn't stop me from having assumptions and prejudices, it's human nature, but I try, in my imperfect way, to keep as open a mind as possible.

Being unable to apply knowledge means you lack wisdom. Case in point, your inability to grasp the fact that this murderer in London was a Muslim.

Now you're defining 'wisdom' as substituting facts for assumptions.

When did it become a fact that he's a Muslim...when you made the assumption, or before?
What if I assumed he was a plumber because everyone I know from London is a plumber?

 

[krych3k]

Is it your contention that he only becomes a Muslim once the BBC or the Guardian report him to be one? I contend that he's been a Muslim his entire life, although I'm willing to accept the possibility that he converted to Islam later in his life (highly unlikely, but possible). Conversely, it is 100% impossible that he is a white Christian conservative or Jewish Zionist. How do you like dem apples?

 

[Pogo]

Is it your contention that he only becomes a Muslim once the BBC or the Guardian report him to be one? I contend that he's been a Muslim his entire life, although I'm willing to accept the possibility that he converted to Islam later in his life (highly unlikely, but possible). Conversely, it is 100% impossible that he is a white Christian conservative or Jewish Zionist. How do you like dem apples?

- this from the guy who thinks "voodoo" lives in the Congo...

 

[idb]

Is it your contention that he only becomes a Muslim once the BBC or the Guardian report him to be one? I contend that he's been a Muslim his entire life, although I'm willing to accept the possibility that he converted to Islam later in his life (highly unlikely, but possible). Conversely, it is 100% impossible that he is a white Christian conservative or Jewish Zionist. How do you like dem apples?

My contention is that I only know for a fact that he's a Muslim when the facts are reported...you may be right in your assumption, but you don't know for a fact that he's Muslim, or a plumber.

 

[krych3k]

Is it your contention that he only becomes a Muslim once the BBC or the Guardian report him to be one? I contend that he's been a Muslim his entire life, although I'm willing to accept the possibility that he converted to Islam later in his life (highly unlikely, but possible). Conversely, it is 100% impossible that he is a white Christian conservative or Jewish Zionist. How do you like dem apples?

My contention is that I only know for a fact that he's a Muslim when the facts are reported...you may be right in your assumption, but you don't know for a fact that he's Muslim, or a plumber.

Right, so if a tree falls in the woods and you don't hear it, it doesn't make a sound in the forest you live in with Osomir. The point is that he is a Muslim whether or not you know it, or choose to believe it. Naivety masquerading as caution before "knowing all the facts" isn't an endearing trait, despite you thinking that it is. It makes you look like a babe in the woods, which is sad assuming you're an adult. Even a leftist like Osomir (although he deludes himself into thinking he's a centrist) can admit that the murderer is "probably" a Muslim.

I wonder, when gangs shoot up neighbourhoods in Chicago, do you not assume that the murderers are young black males?

 

[krych3k]

Do you understand that when you close your eyes, the world doesn't disappear?

 

[Osomir]

No. We apply knowledge. It's called wisdom. We don't throw darts randomly at the dartboard. We also don't sit and wait for a "journalist" to tell us what happened if we can connect the dots on our own. Oh wait, one needs a degree in Islamic studies from Columbia if he or she wants to (correctly) assume that this murder was perpetrated by a Muslim.

You do know that this thread isn't about whether or not he was a Muslim right and that you're just making that up as a strawman argument. right?

 

[krych3k]

I'm not erecting any strawman argumentation. I'm directly addressing statements you've made that directly or indirectly implied that Islam has nothing to do with this murderer and his crime. If that position were true, how is it possible that I (not an expert in anything relevant) was able to correctly assume that the murderer was a Muslim once seeing two things: 1. beheading and 2. London? Considering Muslims constitute about, 5% or the UK's population, that's a longshot for a layman like me. So how do you explain that? Pure luck, perhaps? Or am I the modern incarnation of Nostradamus? Or, more likely, is it that your assertions are complete and utter rubbish?

 

[Osomir]

I'm not erecting any strawman argumentation. I'm directly addressing statements you've made that directly or indirectly implied that Islam has nothing to do with this murderer and his crime.

1.) I simply stated that I had no idea what his motives were because he didn't give them. I could theorize, but why bother when I could wait for the court hearing?

2.) I find it presumptuous even if he is a Muslim to assume that his faith had anything to di with it. You do know that Muslims aren't 100% driven by religion right? And can engage in crimes of all sorts, no religion required.

3.) It was never anyone's assertion in this thread that he isn't a Muslim. My default assumption is that he likely is. The thing is though: he may not be. i'm not arrogant enough to simply label myself as right without any sort of supporting evidence.

If that position were true, how is it possible that I (not an expert in anything relevant) was able to correctly assume that the murderer was a Muslim once seeing two things:

You've labeled yourself correct, and yet you can't prove it by posting anything that confirms your assertions. You're simply assuming you're correct, which isn't the same thing as actually being correct.

 

[Gracie]

Personally, the first thing I thought when reading about this story was 1)Muslim Crazy Dude and 2)Muslim Crazy Dude. Then I read the name of the perp and my second thought was 1) Yup, crazy Muslim Dude in London, Pissed That A Woman Didn't Know Her Place.

Do I know all this for a fact? Nope. But I thought it. Think it. And will probably continue to do so until more is reported.

Just sayin'

 

[Osomir]

Personally, the first thing I thought when reading about this story was 1)Muslim Crazy Dude and 2)Muslim Crazy Dude. Then I read the name of the perp and my second thought was 1) Yup, crazy Muslim Dude in London, Pissed That A Woman Didn't Know Her Place.

Do I know all this for a fact? Nope. But I thought it. Think it. And will probably continue to do so until more is reported.

Just sayin'

The difference here is that you are willing to admit that you don't 100% know it for a fact.

The other issue here for me is not his religious affiliation, or even his motive, but the need some posters seem to have for linking this attack directly to an entire Macro religion like Islam. No matter your assumptions about the specific case, the latter is simply intellectually dishonest.

 

[idb]

Is it your contention that he only becomes a Muslim once the BBC or the Guardian report him to be one? I contend that he's been a Muslim his entire life, although I'm willing to accept the possibility that he converted to Islam later in his life (highly unlikely, but possible). Conversely, it is 100% impossible that he is a white Christian conservative or Jewish Zionist. How do you like dem apples?

My contention is that I only know for a fact that he's a Muslim when the facts are reported...you may be right in your assumption, but you don't know for a fact that he's Muslim, or a plumber.

Right, so if a tree falls in the woods and you don't hear it, it doesn't make a sound in the forest you live in with Osomir. The point is that he is a Muslim whether or not you know it, or choose to believe it. Naivety masquerading as caution before "knowing all the facts" isn't an endearing trait, despite you thinking that it is. It makes you look like a babe in the woods, which is sad assuming you're an adult. Even a leftist like Osomir (although he deludes himself into thinking he's a centrist) can admit that the murderer is "probably" a Muslim.

I wonder, when gangs shoot up neighbourhoods in Chicago, do you not assume that the murderers are young black males?

Whatever I 'assume' doesn't make it a fact.
Saying that the guy was "probably a Muslim" doesn't call it a fact.
You're accusing others of having no understanding of nuance when all you can do is spell the word.

 

[idb]

Do you understand that when you close your eyes, the world doesn't disappear?

Do you understand that just because you believe something doesn't make it true?