Stu wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:32 amLOL just as I thought, he dismisses the arrest.
I'm not necessarily dismissing it, but I'm also not going to take Parsa's word for it. Perhaps in South Africa people get hauled out of malls for being Christian - I really wouldn't know - but here they don't, so the story seems unlikely. Did you notice that the only person quoted was Parsa? Nothing from the women who supposedly wanted to talk to him, or the woman who was supposedly offended by his behavior, or the arresting officers, just one guy claiming that he was arrested for something that people for which people aren't typically arrested.
So no, I'm not dismissing the story, I'm thinking critically about it. You, on the other hand, are completely ignoring all of the problematic details and swallowing it hook, line and sinker, simply because it supports your narrative. That's called confirmation bias.
Stu wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:32 amSo now for one to comment on a topic one has to have lived in or nearby the area itself and to have dated a person in the area as well!!! Wouldn't that rule out 95% of Americans? Is it just Ed and his sources that are factual and count then. All news sources that conflict with Ed's opinion are deemed right-wing, conservative and biased and not worthy of discussion or can be held up as evidence. Got it!
That's not what I said at all, and you know it.
Let me give you a window into my process. When someone posts a story here (or elsewhere) these are some things that I think about and/or do:
1) Read the title. Was it sensationalized and strongly biased? If yes then that's a red flag and the article is likely to be garbage.
2) Read the article. Do the contents match the title? If no then it's probably garbage click-bait and the poster most likely didn't even read it.
3) Compare what the author is claiming happened with my understanding of how the world works. Do the claims match up with what I know about our laws, history, cultural norms, and the like? If not then it's probably garbage.
4) Look for signs of journalism. Are there sources cited? Quotes from people involved? Are multiple points of view addressed? If not then it's probably garbage.
5) Look at when the incident (or supposed incident) took place. Was it recently? If not then have there been any developments?
This one came up when I was responding to B.W.'s stories about Christians being told not to host Bible study classes or prayer groups, or whatever. On several occasions it turned out that there was more to the story, and that the folks involved had discussed things and come to a peaceful resolution months before the right wing blogoshpere picked it up.
6) Look at who else is covering the story. Did it get picked up by 7 pages of right wing blogs, but nobody else? Not even FOX News? Nobody? Sorry, this is probably garbage. If it was real then FOX would have it, the Alliance Defending Freedom would be litigating the matter, and it would have found its way to Donald Trump's Twitter stream.
7) If there are specific details in the article, like names, locations, and organizations I look them up to see if there's more to the story. There often is and the added context often changes things.
8 ) Were specific claims made? If so, I look them up and see if they're accurate and being presented honestly and in the proper context.
That reminds me of an article someone posted here saying that the Muslim population in the US was going to increase massively in the next twenty years. The title was all hysteria - OMG, Muslims everywhere! Sharia is right around the corner! Arm yourselves, people! That was followed by a dry as sand article stating that the Muslim population was likely to increase by upwards of 300% or something, from .003% of the American population to .01%. Alarming stuff, indeed.
There are probably other things I do as well, but that's all I can think of.
My point, Stu, is that
you don't seem to be doing any of those things and you really ought to be.
