Has the Internet Recently had a Change of Identity?

Yet another puerile MISCHARACTERIZATION of what I actually posted!

Sad!

Are you UNAWARE that Israel is a "fundamentalist" Judaic Law nation that embraces democracy?

Are you UNAWARE of Christian Ecclesiastical law?

What about Hindu and Jain law?

All of the above are theist legal systems that still exist and are practiced by their adherents.

All YOU have is some DISINFORMATION about Sharia Law that you are misusing because you have never bothered to RESEARCH the topic for yourself.

My wife's uncle worked in the Middle East and one of his associates there had an adopted son. Apparently shortly after his associate had married he and his new wife were living in small one room house outside of the city because that was all that they could afford at the time. He had just finished his studies to become an accountant and they were starting their new life together. It was late Fall and the temperature outside was just above freezing when there was a knock at the door during the night. He opened the door and it was a man, his wife and their infant son making the pilgrimage to Mecca. They let them in, fed them, and gave them a place to sleep for the night. The next day both of the pilgrims were sick and they died shortly afterwards. The infant survived and they raised him as if he was their own son. When he came of age his adopted father gave him his inheritance from his deceased parents that he had invested for him. Neither he nor his wife ever used any of it for themselves.

They did all of that because those are teachings of Islam and they were good Muslims who believed that Allah had directed the dying pilgrims to their house and left the child in their care.

That is the Sharia Law that you are demonizing.

Try doing some actual RESEARCH on the INTERNET before you respond again and don't just look for what triggers your own Confirmation Bias. Look at ALL of it because for every bad thing you can find about Sharia I can find much more about Christianity. Same applies to the good things because a great deal of our own scientific knowledge stems from Islam while Christians were being OPPRESSED by the Church during the Dark Ages.

IOW's try to USE the internet to gain a SENSE of PERSPECTIVE before leaping to asinine conclusions based on extremist rightwing disinformation rather than the FACTS that you have at your disposal on the internet.

 

Yes, but come on Derideo_Te, let us see both sides of the coin.

Was it not ISIS who were enforcing Sharia law to the full in killing homosexuals and Islamic converts to Christianity? And is it not the case that the exact same thing happens in other countries where Sharia law prevails? For even talking about democracy or human rights you can be put to death in countries like Saudi Arabia.

 

Many Muslims aren't sure of Sharia law because they are moderates. Sharia law is for fundamentalists.

 

It is you that REFUSES to look at both sides of the coin, not me.

How is Christians doing mass shootings in a gay nightclub and synogogues and abortion clinics any different?

The majority of Christians are not fundamentalists who kill people because of their beliefs either.

You are trying to paint ALL Muslims with the crimes of the fundamentalists while IGNORING the crimes of the fundamentalist Christians that are EQUALLY as HEINOUS.

In essence you are just cherry picking to suit your Confirmation Bias which is disingenuous. Personally I condemn ALL theist violence done in the name of their deities and dogma irrespective of whatever it might be and conversely I give CREDIT to ALL theists who ABIDE by the aspects of their religions that are BENEFICIAL to humanity as a whole.

So your condemnation of Sharia Law while IGNORING all others reflects poorly on your knowledge base and judgement in this matter.

Make USE of the internet to EXPAND your knowledge and your perspective and rid yourself of petty prejudices based upon fallacious disinformation.

 

You have raised a very valid point. When radical Christians carry out crimes like these it is just as bad. They are on a similar footing with radical Islamists.

I also don't deny that there are many other sects who carry out crimes against humanity, and this is in no way acceptable either. However it's just that Islamic fundamentalists seem to have the worse reputation in the scale of things <COMMENTS EDITED>

 

Anyone can look this up that this is how Google calculates PageRank on a scale of 0 to 10.

When you look at it critically it does of course lead to an establishment bias. What mathematically gives value to links leading to your webpage is how far away they are from a .gov or .edu website which themselves automatically receive a PageRank of "10".

Another algorithm which could calculate how "Popular" your website is would combine the total number of "hits" or "visits" your site has received with the total amount of time visitors spend on your site and how they navigate the various pages on your site. Many website hits actually "bounce" in that the visitor only spends a matter of seconds on the site before looking elsewhere.

What do you think is the fairist way of calculating algorithms?

Should we put it to the vote?

 

Interesting that according to the Wikipedia page on Google PageRank, the patent for it (now expired) used to be owned by Standford University (i.e. the US government) and not Google.

No wonder .edu and .gov sites are automatically given a PageRank of "10" on the system.

 

Basing page rank on the total number of links a website has is a dreadful way of doing it.

Any new website can be left at the bottom of the pile for months on end before anyone discovers it and starts linking to it.

And creating 'artificial' links to your page doesn't work either. If you put links to your webpage on forums (which is spamming anyway) or on social media, you get what are known as "no follow" links. These links don't add any value to your page ranking as "no follow" is an instruction to the spiders not to include them in the ranking calculation. The whole idea of the "no follow" instruction is to stop spamming.

For your website to get any links, another website owner will have to update their own website while including a link to your own site which will count as a "do follow" link.

What a cumbersome way of doing it.

It seems the whole idea of the algorithm based on links is to give the status quo an unfair advantage over popularism.