cybercoma

Is anyone else getting a broken image next to the post number?

At some point or another I think just about every poster on this forum has claimed their opponent has committed a logical fallacy. Sometimes we're using these claims correctly, other times not so much. Here is a great list of 41 Fallacies with simple, clear explanations.

Original Page: http://www.nizkor.or...ures/fallacies/

Here are the links to the individual fallacies:

• Ad Hominem
• Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
• Appeal to Authority
• Appeal to Belief
• Appeal to Common Practice
• Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
• Appeal to Emotion
• Appeal to Fear
• Appeal to Flattery
• Appeal to Novelty
• Appeal to Pity
• Appeal to Popularity
• Appeal to Ridicule
• Appeal to Spite
• Appeal to Tradition
• Bandwagon
• Begging the Question
• Biased Sample
• Burden of Proof
• Circumstantial Ad Hominem
• Composition
• Confusing Cause and Effect
• Division
• False Dilemma
• Gambler's Fallacy
• Genetic Fallacy
• Guilt By Association
• Hasty Generalization
• Ignoring A Common Cause
• Middle Ground
• Misleading Vividness
• Personal Attack
• Poisoning the Well
• Post Hoc
• Questionable Cause
• Red Herring
• Relativist Fallacy
• Slippery Slope
• Special Pleading
• Spotlight
• Straw Man
• Two Wrongs Make A Right

I'm avoiding use of the actual term, so as not to invite an onslaught of these posters.

Do the mods want us to reply indicating we've reported it, so you don't get flooded with reports for the same posts? Or will this only encourage more them to post?

There has been a bit of discussion lately about Canadian terrorists, particularly around whether we should allow dual-citizenship, stop letting in refugees, and/or be more selective about where Canada's immigrants come from.

CSIS released a report about Canadian terrorists and the results shatter a lot of the myths that are floating around the forum.

A Study of Radicalisation: The Making of Islamists Extremists in Canada Today.

The report tells us that terrorists in Canada mostly commit their acts of terror abroad, are almost always born in Canada, rarely are they immigrants, and never have they been refugees. The report goes on further to say that not only are they not immigrants, but they almost never come from marginalized groups and are typically fully integrated into Canada. In other words, they don't come from those immigrant enclaves that struggle or refuse to integrate into Canada. In fact, CSIS says these terrorists are usually "highly integrated into Canadian society."

MI5 also conducted a study in Britain that was released recently and found very similar results. MI5's study went further to say that "religious identity actually protects against violent radicalization," which flies in the face of generally accepted forum commentary.

What does this tell us at the end of the day?

Well, the experience of immigration, immigrant communities, and religion are almost never the source of terrorism here in Canada. People are not bringing extremist ideas with them here, despite popular belief to the contrary. Furthermore, the most religious are the least radicalized. The findings of CSIS (as well as MI5 and some American intelligence experts) has found that Islamic Extremists, who are religious by definition of course, are typically radicalized politically well before they adopt their extreme religion stance. In other words, there is no direct path from being deeply religious to becoming radicalized, rather it seems the radical become deeply religious.

What CSIS and others believe these terrorist activities are really about is political motives, territorial claims about securing the "land of Islam." These terrorist activities and their narratives seem to have more in common, at least according to CSIS, with the IRA and FLQ than with Muslim communities around the world.

Any audiophiles on this forum?

I'm not an audiophile by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm beginning to dabble in the area. There's a lot of really great information on headphones at www.headphone.com. They have frequency response and harmonic distortion graphs for many of the brands and models that are available.

Anyway, a year ago, I got some Grado iGi earbuds that sound just great to me. They were a little "crisp" at first, but they've mellowed out with use. The bass is nice and punchy without muddying up the mids. The clarity of the vocals and higher frequencies is really where they shine. They've got a nice presence to them.

The only thing is that I don't like listening to earbuds for a long period of time. Having fallen in love with these Grado buds, I'm thinking about picking up the Grado SR80i headphones for listening to music on my iPhone and computer. I considered the SR125i and SR225i; however, they have 1/4" plugs on them and I would need to get an adapter. I'm not really interested in doing that. Also, people on audiophile forums have indicated their preference for the SR80 over the SR125 (although Grado claims the drivers are more closely matched and therefore the headphones should sound better). They say the SR80 headphones have better low end and the SR125 is much brighter, which some found unpleasant.

Oh and I also considered Sennheiser Momentum. Future Shop has them on sale for $100 off (now $299, but I think they can be found for $349), but they were out of stock before Boxing Week and I doubt they'll get any before the sale is over Jan. 3. These headphones don't need an adapter and they have a cord with an iController for MacBooks or iPhones. However, they're also more than double the price of the Grado SR80i and I'm not sure that I would enjoy the sound that much more.

TL;DR: I'm looking to buy some low-end audiophile headphones (Grado SR80i). Are there any audiophiles on this site that knows a thing or two about headphones?