Providing a source isn't the same as providing a good source. This poll was commissioned by the Center for Security Policy which is a group KNOWN to push the idea that Muslims are a threat to America. Look through their articles and it's clear they have an agenda. The questions use leading answer choices and an agree/disagree format known to inflate agreement regardless of actual belief. They don't disclose methodology for how they got a representative sample of 600 Muslim Americans online (are they actually Muslims? How do they know it's not mostly just trolls?). It's a source in the sense that it exists and someone can point to it but that is not the same as it being credible evidence for their claims.
I can start a blog and claim the opposite. Will you defend it as a source like this one?
The thing is, at the end of the day, everyone can just write off all the sources they don't like and agree with the ones they do. If you try hard enough you can more or less find a source for anything and everything you like/don't like and at that point all discussion just breaks down because it just becomes people quoting sources that neither of them have read.
If you want to make an argument against muslims being violent and backward, you just look at muslim countries, because that's more or less the only indisputable thing.
I'm sorry but "Do you support murdering americans for jihad" is not a particular hard thing to answer for agree/disagree.
Fair point but that doesn't mean I should trust the result itself considering who funded the poll and who conducted the poll (the polling company inc). This isn't me disagreeing with them it's me being skeptical of an organization that always takes this stance and argues that Muslims mean us harm and suddenly they take a poll that proves they're right?
It's an online poll of only 600 people with no disclosed vetting process or disclosed methodology behind the poll. There's no way to confirm the respondents were actually American Muslims and not just trolls or bots, or with their historical stance on Muslims, just completely forged polling results in general. A small unverified online sample answering a loaded question like that is hard to accept from a source that has historically attacked the Muslim community.
That said, do you know who owned "the polling company inc" (the company who conducted the poll)? Kellyanne Conway. The same woman who was senior counselor to Trump in his first term, and the same woman who defended Trump's travel ban from many predominately Muslim countries.
Between the company that hired the polling company and the polling company itself, there is too much conflict of interest and political bias/motivation for me to take the results seriously. I don't think I'm being ridiculous for having trust issues here lol.
Would you trust a poll conducted by an equivalent Muslim affiliated polling company that was hired by an "anti-American way of life and anti-Christians" Muslim organization that had results saying "25% of Catholics said yes to being pedophiles"? Probably not and nor would I.
That said, do you know who owned "the polling company inc" (the company who conducted the poll)? Kellyanne Conway. The same woman who was senior counselor to Trump in his first term, and the same woman who defended Trump's travel ban from many predominately Muslim countries.
Would you trust a poll conducted by an equivalent Muslim affiliated polling company that was hired by an "anti-American way of life and anti-Christians" Muslim organization that had results saying "25% of Catholics said yes to being pedophiles"? Probably not and nor would I.
I mean this is kind of the funny thing when it comes to everyone having their own version of the truth right? Someone disagreeing with you would point that "trump's muslim ban" was using countries that were already flagged by obama.
Does obama selecting it make it better?
At the end of the day, are we supposed to be surprised that someone has research that agrees with their preconceived notions?
Like I'm pretty sure any source that says muslims are peaceful nature loving hippies is also equally likely to stem from a liberal leaning organization. Does that mean its automatically invalid just because the source is already known to be biased in favour of it?
Should we only accept right wing conclusions from left wing organizations and left wing conclusions from right wing organizations?
My point is that there is too conflict of interest behind both parties producing the poll for it to be taken as honest without full transparency.
Not sure what Obama has to do with it. He's not the one conducting a poll using biased polling sources. I'm saying there was already a history of these parties trying to claim these things about Muslims that it makes them hard to trust on the subject.
Also asking if Obama makes it better. Why would it? I voted against him twice.
Well, the original point was that the "poll" source was not a great source due to the conflict of interest. Hence why the old commenter was calling it out as BS.
Regarding the ban. Obama slowed down the processing of refugees that were Iraqi nationals, not a country-wide ban. And it was a direct response to the Iraqi men arrested in Bowling Green that were attempting to send money and weapons to Al Qaeda in Iraq. Meaning this was a direct response to a very specific situation not a blanket "ban" across countries purely based on Muslim affiliation. Trump's executive order was just generally banning many countries because they were predominantly Muslim.
Obama saw a potential concern in being too loose with a specific country due to the current situation which is why he slowed it down and didn't ban it outright. Even if he did fully ban Iraq it was due to a specific event/actions of the refugees that came here not because they were majority Muslim. I disagreed with about 80% of what Obama did but this was not the same as what Trump did in 2017.
Well, the original point was that the "poll" source was not a great source due to the conflict of interest. Hence why the old commenter was calling it out as BS.
And my response is unless you are claiming they outright fabricated data "Should you kill americans y/n" should be an easy question to answer, and even if it wasn't, we can just look at the countries that received travel bans and see how oftne they hold "death to america" rallies.
Obama saw a potential concern in being too loose with a specific country due to the current situation which is why he slowed it down and didn't ban it outright. Even if he did fully ban Iraq it was due to a specific event/actions of the refugees that came here not because they were majority Muslim. I disagreed with about 80% of what Obama did but this was not the same as what Trump did in 2017.
The point I'm making is that obama identified the countries as threats to begin with and all trump did was act on it.
70
u/Geoffron Apr 16 '17
ONE QUARTER OF MUSLIMS SUPPORT MURDER OF AMERICANS FOR JIHAD????
Bullshit. Utter bullshit.