Total Posts:105|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Fox News interviews Muslim

Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 2:17:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A scholar wrote a book about Jesus, and the book being written by a Muslim means it therefore has no credibility. Does this woman sound dumb on a regular basis?
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 4:04:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 2:17:18 PM, Mirza wrote:
A scholar wrote a book about Jesus, and the book being written by a Muslim means it therefore has no credibility. Does this woman sound dumb on a regular basis?



That's funny, I just watched this last night. That's the one with Reza Aslan right? (I'm at work and can't see it.)

I assume that women does sound dumb a lot, but that's sort of a typical Fox attitude: to be whinny when it comes to anything that they see as threatening to Christianity. I was glad to see Aslan handle her BS so well.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 8:37:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
He should have said that by her logic, every book is biased. If only Christians can write about Jesus, wouldn't they resolve to bias FOR his side? And so on. I think Fox News has great value, but interviews like these are garbage.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 12:24:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 8:37:57 AM, Mirza wrote:
He should have said that by her logic, every book is biased. If only Christians can write about Jesus, wouldn't they resolve to bias FOR his side? And so on. I think Fox News has great value, but interviews like these are garbage.

There are a lot of garbage programs on Fox and I love Fox. Especially weekend programming. Even their daytime stuff isn't that great. They have a lot of dumb crap like this.

Ah well.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 12:26:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I saw that video on MSNBC last night, it was hilarious, to say the least. What exactly was the anchor trying to prove? That he's not qualified to write a book about Jesus because he's Muslim?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 1:27:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
She was asking questions most Christians would be asking themselves, so it's not completely asinine to give him the chance to address such concerns, however stupid they may be (especially because they're stupid, actually).
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 1:44:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 1:27:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She was asking questions most Christians would be asking themselves, so it's not completely asinine to give him the chance to address such concerns, however stupid they may be (especially because they're stupid, actually).

That's true but a professional could have asked the same questions without being condescending and ridiculous.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 1:45:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 1:44:02 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:27:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She was asking questions most Christians would be asking themselves, so it's not completely asinine to give him the chance to address such concerns, however stupid they may be (especially because they're stupid, actually).

That's true but a professional could have asked the same questions without being condescending and ridiculous.

I didn't think her demeanor was condescending. I thought the questions themselves were condescending and stupid.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 2:04:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 1:45:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:44:02 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:27:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She was asking questions most Christians would be asking themselves, so it's not completely asinine to give him the chance to address such concerns, however stupid they may be (especially because they're stupid, actually).

That's true but a professional could have asked the same questions without being condescending and ridiculous.

I didn't think her demeanor was condescending. I thought the questions themselves were condescending and stupid.

They're not totally unjustified, though. The fact that he was a Muslim going into this suggests his approach could have been biased to accommodate for his Islam faith, but it sounds like this wasn't the case. The fact that a Muslim wrote this book, however, is no more telling than if he were a Christian, or any other faith for that matter, even an atheist would have some bias, so it's a bit of a loaded question. But the fact that he believes in imaginary friend X while talking about imaginary friend Y is not necessarily trivial because he's committed himself to a conviction that doesn't lend itself well to reinterpretation and changes, and he might not feel compelled to accept evidence that contradicts or is at odds with that belief. Though I would agree that it's much more productive to find evidence of his bias than to assume and dismiss his findings because of his background.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 2:13:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 2:04:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:45:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:44:02 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:27:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She was asking questions most Christians would be asking themselves, so it's not completely asinine to give him the chance to address such concerns, however stupid they may be (especially because they're stupid, actually).

That's true but a professional could have asked the same questions without being condescending and ridiculous.

I didn't think her demeanor was condescending. I thought the questions themselves were condescending and stupid.

They're not totally unjustified, though. The fact that he was a Muslim going into this suggests his approach could have been biased to accommodate for his Islam faith, but it sounds like this wasn't the case. The fact that a Muslim wrote this book, however, is no more telling than if he were a Christian, or any other faith for that matter, even an atheist would have some bias, so it's a bit of a loaded question. But the fact that he believes in imaginary friend X while talking about imaginary friend Y is not necessarily trivial because he's committed himself to a conviction that doesn't lend itself well to reinterpretation and changes, and he might not feel compelled to accept evidence that contradicts or is at odds with that belief. Though I would agree that it's much more productive to find evidence of his bias than to assume and dismiss his findings because of his background.

Umm, yeah, no. I think if you want to find credibility, you look at one's education rather than his faith. He's a religious historian. Period. So essentially you're raising argument for the sake of raising argument ... again.

I think I just realized something. I think I only get really annoyed if I think someone's arguing with me at least partially for the heck of it. If it's a bona fide regular back and forth I tend not to get annoyed. I'm not entirely sure how I come to the conclusion that the person's wasting my time, maybe it has something to do with the futility of the position itself, the insignificance of the issue, maybe the way the argument is posed. I don't know, but it's just evident.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 3:05:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh I get it. She's a religion correspondent. She has previously spoken against Islam in the US. That kind of a job on Fox News will result in the regular stupidity.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 4:45:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 2:13:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/31/2013 2:04:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:45:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:44:02 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:27:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She was asking questions most Christians would be asking themselves, so it's not completely asinine to give him the chance to address such concerns, however stupid they may be (especially because they're stupid, actually).

That's true but a professional could have asked the same questions without being condescending and ridiculous.

I didn't think her demeanor was condescending. I thought the questions themselves were condescending and stupid.

They're not totally unjustified, though. The fact that he was a Muslim going into this suggests his approach could have been biased to accommodate for his Islam faith, but it sounds like this wasn't the case. The fact that a Muslim wrote this book, however, is no more telling than if he were a Christian, or any other faith for that matter, even an atheist would have some bias, so it's a bit of a loaded question. But the fact that he believes in imaginary friend X while talking about imaginary friend Y is not necessarily trivial because he's committed himself to a conviction that doesn't lend itself well to reinterpretation and changes, and he might not feel compelled to accept evidence that contradicts or is at odds with that belief. Though I would agree that it's much more productive to find evidence of his bias than to assume and dismiss his findings because of his background.

Umm, yeah, no. I think if you want to find credibility, you look at one's education rather than his faith.

A person's faith is usually part of someones's education, though.

He's a religious historian. Period.

And a commited Muslim. That's to say, his beleifs about history, particularly the history of Jesus, are necessarily Islamic.

But his bias isn't the problem. It was the reporter's Christian bias that is objectionable and which botched what might have been a decent interview.

So essentially you're raising argument for the sake of raising argument ... again.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Nothing wrong with a little argument for the sake of arguing.


I think I just realized something. I think I only get really annoyed if I think someone's arguing with me at least partially for the heck of it. If it's a bona fide regular back and forth I tend not to get annoyed. I'm not entirely sure how I come to the conclusion that the person's wasting my time, maybe it has something to do with the futility of the position itself, the insignificance of the issue, maybe the way the argument is posed. I don't know, but it's just evident.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 4:49:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 4:45:28 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 7/31/2013 2:13:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/31/2013 2:04:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:45:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:44:02 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:27:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She was asking questions most Christians would be asking themselves, so it's not completely asinine to give him the chance to address such concerns, however stupid they may be (especially because they're stupid, actually).

That's true but a professional could have asked the same questions without being condescending and ridiculous.

I didn't think her demeanor was condescending. I thought the questions themselves were condescending and stupid.

They're not totally unjustified, though. The fact that he was a Muslim going into this suggests his approach could have been biased to accommodate for his Islam faith, but it sounds like this wasn't the case. The fact that a Muslim wrote this book, however, is no more telling than if he were a Christian, or any other faith for that matter, even an atheist would have some bias, so it's a bit of a loaded question. But the fact that he believes in imaginary friend X while talking about imaginary friend Y is not necessarily trivial because he's committed himself to a conviction that doesn't lend itself well to reinterpretation and changes, and he might not feel compelled to accept evidence that contradicts or is at odds with that belief. Though I would agree that it's much more productive to find evidence of his bias than to assume and dismiss his findings because of his background.

Umm, yeah, no. I think if you want to find credibility, you look at one's education rather than his faith.

A person's faith is usually part of someones's education, though.

He's a religious historian. Period.

And a commited Muslim. That's to say, his beleifs about history, particularly the history of Jesus, are necessarily Islamic.

But his bias isn't the problem. It was the reporter's Christian bias that is objectionable and which botched what might have been a decent interview.

I'd just repost the exact same comment you just responded to. So, I repeat, the man is a religious historian who happens to be muslim. His book is a biography, not an argument. End of story.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 6:26:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 4:45:28 PM, vbaculum wrote:
And a commited Muslim. That's to say, his beleifs about history, particularly the history of Jesus, are necessarily Islamic.
No, why are they necessarily Islamic? He said he argues from an ACADEMIC perspective. It's obvious since he says Jesus was crucified but Islam says otherwise, according to him. If he were biased, he'd throw off that statement. He's wrong about the latter nonetheless.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 6:38:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 4:45:28 PM, vbaculum wrote:
But his bias isn't the problem. It was the reporter's Christian bias that is objectionable and which botched what might have been a decent interview.
She's biased AND stupid. Her interview had nothing to do with the book. Instead of reading at least some of it and raising good questions, she instead resorted to what others, one who happened to work for Fox News (oh my), had to say about it. She's dumb and should be embarrassed.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 7:06:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 6:26:55 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/31/2013 4:45:28 PM, vbaculum wrote:
And a commited Muslim. That's to say, his beleifs about history, particularly the history of Jesus, are necessarily Islamic.
No, why are they necessarily Islamic? He said he argues from an ACADEMIC perspective. It's obvious since he says Jesus was crucified but Islam says otherwise, according to him. If he were biased, he'd throw off that statement. He's wrong about the latter nonetheless.

But he identifies as a Muslim. And while it's a good sign for the validity of his conclusions that he's proven himself not to be an uncompromising zealot in his faith, he still holds onto an edifice which says he'll burn in hell forever should he strays from its principles. It would seem like that conviction could not easily be present in a so-called impartial investigator on a subject this pertinent to it. This is just ad hom conjecture though, and isn't really indicative enough to be of use.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 7:45:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 1:27:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She was asking questions most Christians would be asking themselves, so it's not completely asinine to give him the chance to address such concerns, however stupid they may be (especially because they're stupid, actually).

However, she didn't really ask him anything pertaining to the contents of his book. Or maybe she did later, but 3 minutes is a bit long to establish credibility when most people assume that the interviewee is credible enough to have earned face time in front of a camera.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 7:50:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 7:45:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:27:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She was asking questions most Christians would be asking themselves, so it's not completely asinine to give him the chance to address such concerns, however stupid they may be (especially because they're stupid, actually).

However, she didn't really ask him anything pertaining to the contents of his book. Or maybe she did later, but 3 minutes is a bit long to establish credibility when most people assume that the interviewee is credible enough to have earned face time in front of a camera.

Most people? It's fox news. Who do you think watches fox news?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 7:54:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 7:50:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/31/2013 7:45:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:27:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She was asking questions most Christians would be asking themselves, so it's not completely asinine to give him the chance to address such concerns, however stupid they may be (especially because they're stupid, actually).

However, she didn't really ask him anything pertaining to the contents of his book. Or maybe she did later, but 3 minutes is a bit long to establish credibility when most people assume that the interviewee is credible enough to have earned face time in front of a camera.

Most people? It's fox news. Who do you think watches fox news?

How is any of what you just said relevant to my statement?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 7:54:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 6:38:45 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 7/31/2013 4:45:28 PM, vbaculum wrote:
But his bias isn't the problem. It was the reporter's Christian bias that is objectionable and which botched what might have been a decent interview.
She's biased AND stupid. Her interview had nothing to do with the book. Instead of reading at least some of it and raising good questions, she instead resorted to what others, one who happened to work for Fox News (oh my), had to say about it. She's dumb and should be embarrassed.

To be fair, if her producers handed her a set of questions to ask this man, she wouldn't be in the position to refuse them.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 7:54:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 7:54:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 7:50:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/31/2013 7:45:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:27:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She was asking questions most Christians would be asking themselves, so it's not completely asinine to give him the chance to address such concerns, however stupid they may be (especially because they're stupid, actually).

However, she didn't really ask him anything pertaining to the contents of his book. Or maybe she did later, but 3 minutes is a bit long to establish credibility when most people assume that the interviewee is credible enough to have earned face time in front of a camera.

Most people? It's fox news. Who do you think watches fox news?

How is any of what you just said relevant to my statement?

"when most people assume that the interviewee is credible enough to have earned face time in front of a camera."

Who are these people?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 7:55:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 7:54:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/31/2013 7:54:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 7:50:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/31/2013 7:45:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:27:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She was asking questions most Christians would be asking themselves, so it's not completely asinine to give him the chance to address such concerns, however stupid they may be (especially because they're stupid, actually).

However, she didn't really ask him anything pertaining to the contents of his book. Or maybe she did later, but 3 minutes is a bit long to establish credibility when most people assume that the interviewee is credible enough to have earned face time in front of a camera.

Most people? It's fox news. Who do you think watches fox news?

How is any of what you just said relevant to my statement?

"when most people assume that the interviewee is credible enough to have earned face time in front of a camera."

Who are these people?

People who watch news interviews? What's your point? Maybe you can start there...make a point please.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 7:58:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 7:55:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 7:54:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/31/2013 7:54:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 7:50:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/31/2013 7:45:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:27:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
She was asking questions most Christians would be asking themselves, so it's not completely asinine to give him the chance to address such concerns, however stupid they may be (especially because they're stupid, actually).

However, she didn't really ask him anything pertaining to the contents of his book. Or maybe she did later, but 3 minutes is a bit long to establish credibility when most people assume that the interviewee is credible enough to have earned face time in front of a camera.

Most people? It's fox news. Who do you think watches fox news?

How is any of what you just said relevant to my statement?

"when most people assume that the interviewee is credible enough to have earned face time in front of a camera."

Who are these people?

People who watch news interviews? What's your point? Maybe you can start there...make a point please.

You are fully aware I made my point.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 7:59:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 7:58:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/31/2013 7:55:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

You are fully aware I made my point.

No I am not. Else, I wouldn't ask specifically, "What's your point?"

C'mon bro. Plain English.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 8:02:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 7:59:44 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 7:58:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/31/2013 7:55:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

You are fully aware I made my point.

No I am not. Else, I wouldn't ask specifically, "What's your point?"

C'mon bro. Plain English.

Fox news asked questions their viewers were most likely wondering themselves, and while the motive for asking said questions was most likely reactionary Christian twaddle, at least she gave him the chance to address those at home sharing the same sentiments.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 8:03:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 8:02:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/31/2013 7:59:44 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 7:58:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/31/2013 7:55:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

You are fully aware I made my point.

No I am not. Else, I wouldn't ask specifically, "What's your point?"

C'mon bro. Plain English.

Fox news asked questions their viewers were most likely wondering themselves, and while the motive for asking said questions was most likely reactionary Christian twaddle, at least she gave him the chance to address those at home sharing the same sentiments.

And I understood this point, and addressed it, by saying specifically that 3 minutes is a bit long to establish credibility when people typically assume it for someone who has earned face time in front of a camera.

Then you sought to make further comments, the relevancy of which still escapes me.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 8:13:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"However, she didn't really ask him anything pertaining to the contents of his book. Or maybe she did later,"

I'm sure she did later...If not then the interview was pretty much a waste. But I don't think you understand: a Muslim man making conclusions about Jesus is not going to go over well for viewers of fox news. If they were going to listen to anything he had to say, she had to establish who he was and why he could talk about it as an authority (more than they received him before she did so, that is).