Quetzal
New member
Religious figures make a habit of doing this. I even did a Google search just for you since you are unable to do one yourself. Here you go.
Curt Schilling's Islam/Nazi tweet
- Thread starter kmoney
- Start date
I see Trumpspeak is finding a comfy home on TOL.
What are you really going on about? A guy like you's always going to move the goal posts, anyway. There's never going to be enough "condemnation" of Islamic terrorism to suit you from Muslims and even if there were you'd find some other demand to make of Muslims just to make you feel superior.
HisServant
New member
Academic sources are almost always left wing loonies.
Like this loony that justifies ISIS's culture of rape against women.
http://louderwithcrowder.com/unbelievable-sjw-professor-tries-to-excuse-actual-rape-culture-of-isis/
Quetzal
New member
So, all universities and scientific studies should be dismissed because you don't like them? :loser:
Quote: Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
In Granite's mind: Just because Islam and Nazi Germany have/had an unfathomable HATRED of Judaism and Christianity doesn't mean we should compare the two.
Yet I see you siding with them more often than not.
In Granite's mind: Just because Islam and Nazi Germany have/had an unfathomable HATRED of Judaism and Christianity doesn't mean we should compare the two.
Yet I see you siding with them more often than not.
HisServant
New member
It's not a matter of not 'liking' them.. its a matter of them violating common sense a lot of time.
Berkeley in particular... what a bunch of nut jobs.
Quetzal
New member
How do reports and studies based on empirical evidence go against common sense?
HisServant
New member
I think you will find that your empirical evidence really isn't empirical at all.
Quetzal
New member
It isn't about what I think. But if you discredit all academic institutions on principle, you have a reached a new low in the way of intellectual thought.
HisServant
New member
No, respect must be earned on a person by person basis.. it isn't given just because someone did their time in academia to obtain a piece of paper.
Most of the people have have made real advances for humankind did not have college degrees... they were humans with common sense and the ability to be practical in their thinking.
Remember, those that cant make a living at their profession teach it instead.
Quetzal
New member
You do understand the studies and sources I am referring to are based on multiple perspectives from multiple people who are regarded as experts in the field, right? It is a bit more than a piece of paper.
This is true, however, a few things to think about. The people you are referring to were in a different social, economic, and political world than we are in now. We have all seen the posters of great celebrities who dropped out. But we need to remember they are the exception, not the rule.
Have you ever gone to college? What did you study? Did you complete your program?
HisServant
New member
As my old PHD professor used to tell me... an 'expert' is nothing more than a 'normalspert' with an attitude.
When you live long enough and get wise enough, you will understand that the culture that academia breeds is what is holding humanity back... to be successful you need to break the chains of the mindset they instill in you.
I hold more than half a dozen degrees and multiple state licenses (Engineering, Surveying and Planning) but they are immaterial to this discussion.
Quetzal
New member
Some "normalsperts" know more than others. What else would you like to base the academic process on if not empirical knowledge from leaders of the field?
Great bumper sticker, but a terrible idea in practice. If someone wants to make a breakthrough in a topic, you need to at least have some sort of background knowledge on said topic. You do not spontaneously obtain a greater tier of understanding just because you want to.
Yes, they are. You are saying the academic process is flawed so much to the point that it should be dismissed and yet you (apparently) went through the process more than six times? And are you also saying you don't benefit from them?
There's nothing wrong with self effacing humor unless you use it to teach the wrong lesson.
I don't think learning more about a thing and developing critical thinking tool-sets is ever a problem, though any power structure has a way of politicizing itself and succumbing to a blinkering bias without careful attention. Mostly, academia has that attention built in with peer review and empirical standards (for much of it).
Then you're underestimating the impact of the particular on your general process. I know my Juris Doctor impacts everything I consider, methodologically. Any serious discipline should and I'm betting yours did, but it's a bit like losing or gaining weight.
Yes, I think that's a reasonable way to interpret the graphic and his tweeting it. Which I don't think is bad.
We don't have to. But there is something in learning from history.
HisServant
New member
His point is that no matter how much you think you are an expert in a particular field, there is always someone better than you. So never call yourself an expert and never let anyone else call you one either. If you do let your ego get the better of you. Be prepared to get egg on your face.
What is your goal in trying to get people to believe that Islam and the Quran are inherently violent? For the topic at hand I'd say it's quite counterproductive. Is your ultimate hope that if people believe Islam is inherently violent then people will leave?
Except for the one guy.
Oh, then I think he's made a mistake. It doesn't matter that somewhere, someone knows more entirely or just on a point. If you follow your professor's notion no one would be anything because qualification of any sort is based on a criteria and how our skill-set and knowledge relates. Why should expert be the unreasonable cut-off? Why not the initial designation, like lawyer or physician? Because those are labels that note a particular level of education in a field. Not much different from further education and expertise.
I know all sorts of experts in all sorts of fields. And I'm one in a few. It's only a way of recognizing a degree of familiarity and knowledge that rises to a level where the holder's voice is a measurably more informed and therefore generally more reliable summation of a particular.
To me the mistake is the assumption that it's about ego. It shouldn't be, though if someone is proud of having gone to and through specialization in any particular and his acumen attests to the impact, that's his business. Won't make him winsome to a jury, past a point.