Two explosions at Brussels Airport, several injured

Nope, all I see is a survey of an unknown number of people suggesting that more than 1% of Muslims hold ONE extremist view subject to unspecified conditions - which has been extrapolated to fit a larger population.

I want to know how many people were actually surveyed.

Countrygypt
Sample design:Multi-stage cluster sample stratified by governorate and urbanity
Mode:Face-to-face adults 18 plus
Languages:Arabic
Fieldwork dates:April 10 – April 29, 2014
Sample size:1,000
Margin of error:+/-4.3 percentage points
Representative:Adult population (excluding frontier governorates, or about 2% of the population)


A 3% margin of error means that if the same procedure is used a large number of times, 95% of the time the true population average will be within the 95% confidence interval of the sample estimate plus or minus 3%. The margin of error can be reduced by using a larger sample, however if a pollster wishes to reduce the margin of error to 1% they would need a sample of around 10,000 people.

1000 is absolutely bloody fine for extrapolating national tendencies.

"Now, remember that the size of the entire population doesn't matter when you're measuring the accuracy of polls. You could have a nation of 250,000 people or 250 million and that won't affect how big your sample needs to be to come within your desired margin of error. The Math Gods just don't care."

http://www.robertniles.com/stats/margin.shtml

Ofcourse, the smart ass will then attack polls in general. That's all you've got left to argue after all.

Unbelievable how embarrassing it is to see someone constantly shake their head when their argument is demolished.

P.S it's not extremist view. That's but just one of the questions. You'd have to actually check the report for that though.
Posted from TSR Mobile

What was the cause?

hmmm... let's say it was done by some people who thought that it was their duty to eliminate some other people who were passing by, so that some metaphysical entity would reward them in afterlife, in particular with a special allocation of wide-eyed beauties, whom neither man nor djinn had defiled

please, don't ask me to be more specific, as that would make a hater out of me.

No, you are calling me a terrorist sympathiser because you've run out of ways to attack my argument.

I denounce terrorists, they are nothing but evil murderers hiding behind the motivation of faith. But hating on 1.5 billion Muslims who had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorism is going to achieve nothing good, and you act with this stuck up attitude like they 'need to be told this', do you honestly think they're not aware?

no one here hates 1.5 billion Muslims

we are anti-Islam : that's all

best

1,000 people. That is one eight-hundredth of the Muslim population of Egypt.

Any margin of error needs to be multiplied by 80,000, since this survey is essentially assuming that 1 person is equal to 80,000 people.

So if the statistics are off by a 4 point percentage error, that's 320,000 Muslims who they have incorrectly estimated as favouring ISIS.

But oh, wait, you wrote a BS paragraph about how "1000 is totally fine", did you follow the election polls? They were wrong in the end.

"Afterlife" "djinn" ... too specific mate

EDIT: Well not afterlife in particular... but more specifically djinn - it resides from Arabian mythology...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Oh frankieboy oh frankieboy. Keep up that cognitive dissonance. You've been a great example of it.

This.

Irrelevant tosh.


"Now, remember that the size of the entire population doesn't matter when you're measuring the accuracy of polls. You could have a nation of 250,000 people or 250 million and that won't affect how big your sample needs to be to come within your desired margin of error. The Math Gods just don't care."

Continue to ignore. I've come to expect it. Your understanding of sociology and the statistics in polling is outstanding. You've really shown that survey to be poor

Oh wait, you compare it to an election poll. Because that doesn't have extra propaganda and influential factors constantly changing peoples minds!

Oh frankieboy oh frankieboy. Keep up that cognitive dissonance. You've been a great example of it.



Posted from TSR Mobile

Islam is a peaceful religion, and you hate the religion, but the people who claim to follow it in extreme versions are the sources of the problems.

That is the most ass-backwards thing I've concluded from you so far.

Watch this, it might open up your stupid head to the senses - that Islam is a peaceful religion and that ISIS do not purport Islam in the same fashion that 1.5 billion Muslims do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYedKXpb5mo

It's not really a religion of peace though. And the fault lies in the writings as well as the people who follow it in an extreme manner. To simply assert that it is a religion of peace in the way that you do is ignorant.

Except apostates?

Oh really? It's 'ignorant' to simply assert things? You've been 'simply asserting' **** for the last 30 pages of this thread. You're yet to actually explain why Islam is not peaceful without a blind assertion which you just criticised. Apart from some stupid comment like "oooh its ambiguous or contradictory bla bla bla" - it's quite evident that you don't even know what the hell the Quran says and you are negatively predisposed to it because of mental issues.

I keep hearing you whinging on and on and on and on and on about how you're criticising Islam, when Christianity is no better. You're focused on Islam like it's the only factor contributing to radicalisation as well, it most certainly isn't.

Islam is a peaceful religion, it condemns killing, it condemns terrorism, it promotes fair justice, it forbids aggressive warfare, religious-directed attacks are forbidden, the killing of non-combatants is forbidden, and the list goes on.

You have no idea what you're talking about when you just blindly say that Islam is not a peaceful religion. Islam is equally as peaceful as Christianity, if not most religions in the modern world - yet you criticise Islam for some stupid reason?

Seriously, you're literally ISIL's best weapon, the average Daily Mail reader who believes whatever the isolationist press says, who hates Islam because a warped version of it has been gaining ground in the last few years, and you call me a terrorist sympathiser? You're the one doing what the terrorists want.

I'll focus on Christianity when a militant group called "Christian State" occupy part of a country, oppress and rape women, train and deploy jihadis, publically execute people for all manner of reasons, and act so extreme they put the squirts into other terror groups. But once again, I don't care for any religion. How many times do I need to explain that to you before it sinks in?

You seriously expect me to believe that Islam is a peaceful religion when medieval barbarity has existed from it since day one, and when the book itself speaks of violence. When countless acts of violence have been done in it's name. You really are an ignorant buffoon.

You just you keep doing what you've been doing for the past 19 pages of this discussion, which is being an apologist for the extremists.

Except apostates?

I overestimated you, you truly are a tool working in favour of ISIS. So when ISIS attacks British soil, just know that it was your attempts to alienate and insult Muslims which probably helped radicalise the perpetrators.

If that ever happens, you'll no doubt be helping them. How does it feel to be an apologist for murder, rape, and terrorism?

You are confusing Islam with what IS claim is Islam.

Typical arrogance, calling anyone who disagrees a terrorist apologist. In all honesty, its people like you who hate on their faith which is worse than apologists.