As much as I like the views expressed in several of those sites you linked to… I tend to not put much trust in the accuracy of one side or the other until both sides are talking about the same issues.
I will wait to see the same stories being reported in other media channels before believing it whole heartedly.
I made no such accusations. The post is there for anyone to read. It is a fact, that the father posted these comments on a public facebook page. It is a fact, that the School District and Police Department have been unable to say why the acted as they did. It is a fact, that the family refuses to permit them to disclose these details.
I drew no conclusions at all, and since what I did write (to suggest that the original storyline was bogus) was based on facts, the one conclusion I did draw, that the story was flawed and likely false, is therefore supported by fact.
I made not the tiniest assertion that they were terrorists. That’s your conclusion. I did say “that none of us yet knows the truth, and possibly won’t ever know the truth. But it certainly does appear that the only real injustice done here, was to those Irving school officials, who were crucified by well-meaning but fully ill-informed people, who simply took a media news story at face value”, and I believe that to be an accurate and well supported statement.
If I were to hazard a guess, it would not involve terrorism, rather, what I think here is that we have a kookie father, influencing his children into inappropriate behavior… But again, just a guess,
You’ve chosen to promote yourself as the arbiter of what we can think and speak here,I wonder upon what basis you’ve elected to serve as our mommy?
It is a fact that this story is not about Ahmed’s sister, or Ahmed’s dad; it’s about Ahmed. You are painting a portrait of Ahmed by mentioning his other family members, a portrait for which you don’t actually have facts about Ahmed. This is known as “poisoning the well.” You should resist this urge.
Once you start a thread, and make “statements of fact”, I believe that you have an intellectual obligation to follow the thread and the responses to it. This last post continues to claim “facts” where I have posted information that disputes those facts. You may not want to see it, but your original post was not about the inaccuracy of reporting (which is wide spread), but was an attack on Ahmed and his family, and ultimately on Muslims in general. I think that we can all agree that the nature of our media world is such that these types of stories will always be subject to hype and over reaction. Proof of this exists in the fact that “experts” jumped on the band wagon to argue that the “clock” was not built from scratch and was not an “invention” EVEN THOUGH NOBODY EVER CLAIMED THAT IT WAS IN THE FIRST PLACE. They did this because it was a big story, and they wanted their little piece of the fame pie. That is human nature.
Sorry that you feel like you are being abused because some of us are unreasonable, but once you went from “facts” (which were generally wrong) to conclusions (drawn from bad facts) to generalizations (flawed, and wrong in almost every instance) you opened yourself up to this.
And while I somewhat agree that we shouldn’t be overly monitored, when you come into a community of people that are generally fact based and make sloppy claims of fact, you should expect some backlash.
I think the real problem is that retractions and corrections never get the same coverage as the story that went viral in the first 24 hours. People just run with that initial headline and never look back.
We need to be careful when arguing semantics.
Here is a headline from CNN on the story:
They actually use the words “creates clock”.
Mohamed himself uses these words, according to the article:
“I built a clock to impress my teacher…,” Ahmed told reporters Wednesday.
Many reasonable people would expect something more from a 14 year old “into robotics” who “creates” or “builds” a clock than removing the guts from a clock and afixing them to a case, so it seems some folks, including the person in question, seem to use inappropriate words when better phrased might include “assembled”, “reconfigured”, “cobbled together”. Using the word “built” in particular usually implies some kind of “from scratch” connotation. The word “create” has even stronger “different than ever before seen” implications.
So if we want to argue that we are “sticking to facts”, hurling insults based on semantics of the English language is not a good place to start.
I do not see where Tapper says that he is being abused. Some others suggest the flagging system is being abused…
i find this clause largely unsupportable by the evidence at hand, especially the parenthetical assertions.
Good points. Not only do they run and never look back, but we usually jump the gun on having opinions emotional reactions disguised as opinions we consider “facts-based”.
[quote=“bwmccall, post:25, topic:5851”]
when you come into a community of people that are generally fact based and make sloppy claims of fact, you should expect some backlash.
[/quote]Also Wholeheartedly agree with this. Expect backlash. But don’t expect censorship. The appropriate answer to objectionable speech (or writing) is more speech, not the blocking/censoring/siliencing of what was objectionable.
If one wants a “safe space” where they are protected or shielded from objectionable ideas or statements that upset or offend, they should go back to college. Or maybe to the Automotive Committee area…
I have found that the most appropriate response to objectionable speech is simply to ignore it most of the time. Speech harms no one. Objectionable actions on the other hand are an entirely different kettle of fish.
But I do agree with the spirit of your point, attempting to silence somoene you don’t agree with is a very poor response. And it is an extremely dangerous one with the precedent it sets.
I believe our flagging system is well designed, but like almost everything else it requires the users to behave properly. I strongly disagree with Brandon’s classification of the OP as ‘spam’. It seems that the OP post was a direct response to the ‘Let support Ahmed the clock builder’ posts on this forum specifically. Which hardly makes it ‘spam’
In the realm of be excellent with one another, you really only have two proper responses with a post of a political opinion you disagree with (particularly when it is in response to earlier posted political opinions), and that is to ignore it, or engage in debate.
On the other hand, in the spirit of excellence, perhaps we should amend the rules to ban ALL political comments? I don’t think it will work, since people will rarely agree on just what constitutes political speech, but it might be something to consider.
to the point of semantics of the English language, Wikipedia actually uses a phrase I think is entirely applicable:
Mohamed had reconstructed an electronic clock in a pencil box and brought it to school to show his teachers
(emphasis added by me)
Nice job wiki editors!
ahem… pencil box?
Wiki editors … meh.
Is a “pencil box” different than a “pencil case”?
A teenager with dreams of becoming an engineer, he wanted to show his teacher the digital clock he’d made from a pencil case.
(emphasis mine)
So, If I said “I went to the Zoo”, and it was reported that I said “I went to the Zoo”, and then a later second hand article reported that “I built the Zoo”, then it would be reasonable to write a long article detailing why I could not possible have built the Zoo?
The shallow principle applies here. If you want (or demand) good information, but are too lazy to do the research to get it, and are willing to go off of 2nd, 3rd and 4th hand information on the internet, then you are just wasting your time.
If anybody wants to get a laptop and a few white boards and diagram this thing out one day using GOOD information, I am all for that. What we have here though is repetition of falsehoods in a non-linear fashion, which is what paves the road to nowhere.
Is an old Cigar Box the same as an old Pencil Box?
Not sure I follow your argument here. CNN is generally considered a reliable news source. They quote Ahmed Mohamed’s words, and in so doing assert he himself used the word “built” in the article linked and quoted above. In this case, to use your analogy, YOU said “I built the Zoo”, and it was reported that you said “I built the Zoo”. At which point it would be entirely reasonable for a second-hand article to assert you did not “build the Zoo” and to present supporting evidence.
At least we agree there.
In some cases, yes, but sometime in the 1970’s or so in the USA, cigars stopped being so fashionable, the boxes harder to come by, and yet “replicas” popped up to suite the “pencil case” market. It has since evolved into whatever morph is fashionable, but todays “pencil case” or “pencil box” was once a cast-off cigar box…
Wait. You answered my question with a question. I still don’t know the answer or understand your objection to Wikipedia’s choice of “pencil case”. I don’t see a huge difference in “pencil box” or “pencil case”.
Oh forgot to reply to your reply about ‘pencil case’ in the wiki, which was a quote from the CNN story. …and even I was under the impression the clock was inside a briefcase, but after closer review of the many images available on the Interwebs… I see that it truly was the size of a ‘pencil case’.
Thanks! I was wondering the same thing. From pictures available in media stories it was unclear if it was actually a briefcase or not. I as just to lazy/uninterested in the story in general to care enough to go figure it out. So thanks again…
It seems many people labored under this impression. I think the original CNN video, which I am unable to find just now, flat out stated in the voiceover that it was a “pencil case made to look like a briefcase”. I might be wrong about that, though, but for some reason, it was always clear to me that it was a “pencil box” made to look like a small briefcase…
Thank you for clarifying. I get it now. 
Welcome to Dallas CobbledTogetherSpace.
I’m not sure how much “from scratch” someone would make a clock, but most people would use a kit if they needed a clock.
The size of the electrical cord plug made me realize how small it was. Looks like it is about 2.5 plugs’ length deep.
