poirot: For the most part you feed me opinion with a few "cherry-picked" facts to support it.

Of course poirot. I give you an opinion based on those facts which you now admit are correct. I believe, going by the above sentence. Thank you.

Poirot: You acted after I posted this:

I did check it out when I had the first opportunity. I'm retired so I don't go to Brisbane very often.

Poirot: That doesn't appear to be the case from the example above.

Well no one is perfect. One or two hiccups which get corrected as soon as possible. That doesn't over ride the fact that most of the evidence I present to you are from the so called "peaceful people" themselves. As you say "Cherry-picked Facts," which you now admit are true facts. People like Chaudory, Abu Imam & Iftikhar. Champions of Moderate Islam.

Jayb,

I was actually quite impressed that you did seek out the truth of the Mt Warren story.

As I said, if you'd had any doubts as to its veracity, perhaps you should have held off posting that bit from your mate.

I tend to respond in kind.

So when you say things like

"If brains were electricity you wouldn't turn on a LED (.6V)...."

Well......

(Cherry-picking "facts" is practiced to skew actualities not to present a true picture)

SM,

To you the evidence was overwhelming.
I believe you when you tell me that.
To me it wasn't, because none of it made
any logical sense and I preferred to wait until
we knew all of the facts. You didn't. As I stated
earlier, that is your perogative.

As for selectivity in our judgements?

You
have consistently displayed selectivity on
this forum. Your track records has been there
for all to see.

Inevitably all of us will be guilty of
some measure of bias - the tendency, often
unconscious, to interpret facts according to one's
own values. This problem is quite common -
but it becomes particularly acute in issues whose
subject matter involves issues of deep human and
moral concern.

How can this problem be resolved?

The first step is to recognise that subjectivity and
objectivity are not two neat and separate categories,
they are really matters of degree. By exercising
scrupulous caution we can attempt to be as objective
as possible. This caution involves a deliberate effort
to be conscious of one's own biases so that they can be
kept out of the process of interpretation.

That is precisely why I have tried to suggest that we
all wait until all the evidence is presented in court.
We should all try to be intellectually honest - and
attempt to be aware of our own values and not allow these
values to distort things. We need to hunt down all the
relevant facts and not ignore those that are inconvenient
for our pet theories. The suppression or the misuse
of knowledge as you well know is extremely common - especially
in the political arena.

Cheers.

poirot: (Cherry-picking "facts" is practiced to skew actualities not to present a true picture)

Well I don't actually have to cherry pick. The facts are given as presented by the very people themselves. The Facts are over whelming in favour of keeping Muslims out of Australia for the safety of future Australians. This is a terrible Medieval Religion that does not belong in any modern society let alone Australia.

You refuse to even look at any evidence presented to you. You say so yourself. So you cannot, in all honesty, give a balanced reply. You can only divert, avoid, duck & weave or anything in order to not answer any of the facts as presented. That's what you call debate?

I think you are right Banjo. They'll just give this guy a nice talking to & send him home to avoid any diplomatic fallout. It's not right, but, we'll see.

Yada, yada, yada, Jayb.

You guys can't suck me in with your fascinating cherry-picks so you come out with (what is becoming "hackneyed") line that I divert.

When you start listing the absolute "myriad" crimes occasioned by non-Muslims, then you'll have a case worth responding to.

When you balance your natty list of Muslim crimes with individual stories of Muslims enhancing their communities, then you'll find that I listen.

These threads are full to the brim of biased cherry-picks, designed to fuel the hysteria abounding around here.

Not surprising.......at all.

Lexi,

To function as a human being, you make decisions based on the information available. Criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt, Civil courts require reasonable evidence, and day to day decisions "sufficient" evidence. Waiting to get ALL the facts before making a decision generally means never making a decision. Given some of the bold assertions you have made on the flimsiest evidence, your logic is definitely subjective. While I never claimed to be completely unbiased, I at least require sufficient information before I make an assertion.

The reality is that this pervert cleric, had three separate claims of similar indecent acts against him by 3 unrelated women, and the chances of all three fabricating this were close to zero. If logically you could not join the dots, I pity you.

P,

That all ethnic groups commit crimes is not an excuse to whitewash one particular group that is particularly prone. That school teachers have abused children, does not give priests a get out of jail card.