|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 18, 2018 14:25:56 GMT
Mic, I love the way Thor is using an item of fake news, something most likely created by Islamophobes, to make such a confused point. How can one say that Trudeau and the Mayor are 'ignoring' an act when this and similar acts are condemned explicitly, along with the act of filing false reports? I don't know either. It's a poor example. Neither is 'inclusive' a dirty word to many, as Thor sneeringly implies, as he did with 'diversity' recently. But then he would.
The notion that such a bald claim, presented without qualification as it was, that "Christianity will be replaced by Islam" is really "not hyperbolic" gave me a laugh too.
FilmFlaneur, I think you are responding to goz. Yes, thanks have corrected that now and expanded some, too.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jan 18, 2018 22:14:04 GMT
I do wish idiots like you ( and Erjenious and others) would stop giving overall credence to single incidents of atrocities and then generalise them to whole populations that you don't like for some reason. This stupid post is up there with Erjenious posting 'It just snowed in Texas so there is no such thing as global warming' for stupid.
Goz, I love the way Thor is using an item of fake news, something most likely created by Islamophobes, to make such a confused point. First, creating a fake bigoted report (away from the exaggerations of satire) is not "fake bigotry" as Thor's twisted logic would have it, but more amplifying hatred through lies, expecting some traction of belief. Secondly, how can one say that Trudeau and the Mayor are 'ignoring' an act when this, and similar are condemned explicitly by the former, apparently along with the act of filing false reports? I don't know either. It's a poor example. In fact, if one ever does not condemn Islamophobic fake news, arguably one is showing an indifference to religious hatred, which means I ought to be the one complaining about events in Canada, not Thor! So he is being disingenuous. (Neither is 'inclusive' a dirty word to many, as Thor sneeringly implies, just as he did with another reactionary bugbear, 'diversity' recently. But then he would.)
Also, the notion that such a bald claim, presented without qualification as it was, that "Christianity will be replaced by Islam" is really "not hyperbolic" gave me a laugh - as did (given the well-evidenced Islamophobia of Thor) the notion that a reader familiar with his narrative of hate would be expected to take the statement in anything other than a negative comment.
And, re: "Flemmy" "Flim Flam" etc, he and his satellite ought to note such things are still not arguments, just name calling, such as I got over in school.
Fake news eh? Created by Islamophobes you say? Hmm. Ok
Toronto Police
The Mayor of Toronto.
Canadian Prime Minister. A Muslim family invented an attack on their child that didn't happen. They lied about being victims of bigotry. Nobody cares that they lied. This was the Mayors response finding out the attack didn't happen
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 19, 2018 0:05:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 19, 2018 20:31:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Jan 19, 2018 23:14:01 GMT
But having said this, it is hard to extrapolate, as you have, Pew's 2%, representing 2.9m of the population, implied a total number of heads as being 120-400 million. Perhaps you need to do more maths? Such statistical work and assertion reminds me of Thor (more blustery, self-justifying and rude every day... etc.) Did you seriously just do what I think you just did? Pretend I said 400 million instead of 140 million so you could justify your "authoritative", but nevertheless crap, analysis by pretending that mine was just as bad if not worse? I never thought I'd say it, but you have defined an entirely new level of hubristic stupidity, beyond anything that even Blade could ever achieve. But thanks for the piece of mansplaining to inform me that the UK population was 65.5m. When I said earlier that 120-140 million was around double the actual value of the UK population I had no idea how wildly inaccurate an estimate that was.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jan 20, 2018 1:47:30 GMT
But having said this, it is hard to extrapolate, as you have, Pew's 2%, representing 2.9m of the population, implied a total number of heads as being 120-400 million. Perhaps you need to do more maths? Such statistical work and assertion reminds me of Thor (more blustery, self-justifying and rude every day... etc.) Did you seriously just do what I think you just did? Pretend I said 400 million instead of 140 million so you could justify your "authoritative", but nevertheless crap, analysis by pretending that mine was just as bad if not worse? I never thought I'd say it, but you have defined an entirely new level of hubristic stupidity, beyond anything that even Blade could ever achieve. But thanks for the piece of mansplaining to inform me that the UK population was 65.5m. When I said earlier that 120-140 million was around double the actual value of the UK population I had no idea how wildly inaccurate an estimate that was. Flim Flam just said Hmm, lets do more maths. If 2,900,000 is 2% then 1% would be 1,450,000. So 1,450,000 x 100 = 145,000,000 So for 2,900,000 to represent 2% of the total, the total must be 145,000,000. QED LOLQEDLOLOL!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Jan 21, 2018 0:29:33 GMT
If the religious always out breed the non-religious and religion has been around for thousands of years... why are there any non-religious people at all?!? Surely they would have all long since disappeared? But we're actually seeing an increase in the non-religious in most western countries as even people born into religious families often reject their family's religion.
So regardless of whether or not immigrants come in from Muslim countries or wherever, without a state and the entire structure of the country telling them they have to believe most people will make their own minds up and abandon their faith.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jan 21, 2018 0:54:02 GMT
If the religious always out breed the non-religious and religion has been around for thousands of years... why are there any non-religious people at all?!? Surely they would have all long since disappeared? But we're actually seeing an increase in the non-religious in most western countries as even people born into religious families often reject their family's religion. So regardless of whether or not immigrants come in from Muslim countries or wherever, without a state and the entire structure of the country telling them they have to believe most people will make their own minds up and abandon their faith. Come on dude, you already know the answer to that one.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 21, 2018 9:16:18 GMT
If the religious always out breed the non-religious and religion has been around for thousands of years... why are there any non-religious people at all?!? Surely they would have all long since disappeared? But we're actually seeing an increase in the non-religious in most western countries as even people born into religious families often reject their family's religion. So regardless of whether or not immigrants come in from Muslim countries or wherever, without a state and the entire structure of the country telling them they have to believe most people will make their own minds up and abandon their faith. Exactly. I find it telling that the posters who paint the boogeyman of islamization of Europe usually don't mention Spain, which at one time became a place under Islamic rule. And where is Spain today?
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Jan 21, 2018 9:58:19 GMT
But we're actually seeing an increase in the non-religious in most western countries as even people born into religious families often reject their family's religion. Meanwhile, in the real world, a poll conducted ten years ago found that 36% of British Muslims between 16 and 24 years old believe that if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death. This compares with 19% of British Muslims over 55. Perhaps you'd care to explain how this reconciles with your 'expert' analysis that the young are rejecting their family's religion while only the old are clinging on to it.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 21, 2018 13:27:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Jan 21, 2018 14:36:31 GMT
Different poll. Or do you think all polls about Muslim attitudes are false because they are, ummm, about Muslim attitudes? Or do you mistrust polls in general? I'm not clear what point you are making. But anyway, do you dispute the result that says that 36% of British Muslims between 16 and 24 years old believe in the death penalty for apostates? If so, please feel free to provide any evidence, or even a counter argument, why you do. Was the question worded ambiguously, or anything like that?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 21, 2018 14:52:42 GMT
tpfkar The problem is Goz, you display blatant double standards. You call out Christianity for homophobic bigotry, yet you also say "it doesn't matter" what Muslims think because there aren't many of them. So does prejudice not matter unless it is by large groups of people? And why am I a bigot for calling out Islam and you not a bigot for calling out Christianity? Could it be because the people you call out are mainly white and the people I call out are mainly none white? I think thats it, isn't it? "I think thats it, isn't it?" Yeah, that's how you guys work. Try to flip and project your own racial hangups. As in "Meaning that the demographicsof the nation are shifting from British and European to African and Asian."How many Muslims are or have been on here ranting about gays and continuously crapping bugaboo wails? When they do come on board, they do get responses for any patent nonsense that they post, just like anybody else. The question on the table was "But what explanation are you offering for why certain minorities are overrepresented in certain crimes?"
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 21, 2018 15:18:06 GMT
Different poll. Or do you think all polls about Muslim attitudes are false because they are, ummm, about Muslim attitudes? Or do you mistrust polls in general? I'm not clear what point you are making. But anyway, do you dispute the result that says that 36% of British Muslims between 16 and 24 years old believe in the death penalty for apostates? If so, please feel free to provide any evidence, or even a counter argument, why you do. Was the question worded ambiguously, or anything like that? Yes, it was a different poll; but a more recent one. About the 36%. Where was the poll conducted? In a prison which contained many people arrested for allegations of terrorism? The poll doesn't say. How was the question worded? "If someone left Islam, and a member of your family killed them: Would you report your family member to the police?" and counting "No" as "Supporting death penalty"? The poll doesn't say. Who conducted the poll? Here we have an answer: "Policy Exchange". They are in favour of Brexit, like UKIP. But even if the poll's aim was to measure opinions instead of making them: 36% of people in favour of the death penalty for apostates means that 64% are not in favour of the death penalty for apostates. That's a large majority. And we only have a narrow age bracket. It would be interesting to see how those polled at the time would answer to the same question today, now that they are older and more mature.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 15:45:15 GMT
Different poll. Or do you think all polls about Muslim attitudes are false because they are, ummm, about Muslim attitudes? Or do you mistrust polls in general? I'm not clear what point you are making. But anyway, do you dispute the result that says that 36% of British Muslims between 16 and 24 years old believe in the death penalty for apostates? If so, please feel free to provide any evidence, or even a counter argument, why you do. Was the question worded ambiguously, or anything like that? Yes, it was a different poll; but a more recent one. About the 36%. Where was the poll conducted? In a prison which contained many people arrested for allegations of terrorism? The poll doesn't say. How was the question worded? "If someone left Islam, and a member of your family killed them: Would you report your family member to the police?" and counting "No" as "Supporting death penalty"? The poll doesn't say. Who conducted the poll? Here we have an answer: "Policy Exchange". They are in favour of Brexit, like UKIP. But even if the poll's aim was to measure opinions instead of making them: 36% of people in favour of the death penalty for apostates means that 64% are not in favour of the death penalty for apostates. That's a large majority. And we only have a narrow age bracket. It would be interesting to see how those polled at the time would answer to the same question today, now that they are older and more mature. Great points (Thanks also for the earlier link!)
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 21, 2018 15:57:22 GMT
For the interested (and lazy), here's the essentials: TBH, I'm not sure how compelling I find this argument in terms of "doubting" the polls; it's really just reducing the scope of the poll from "British Muslims" to "British Muslims in Muslim-concentrated areas," without providing any evidence that there would be any difference between them. I'd agree there might be, but that's not much of a basis to condemn the poll on. Still, it would be nice if there was another poll that could control for that variable (or even just test that specific variable).
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Jan 21, 2018 16:02:39 GMT
Yes, it was a different poll; but a more recent one. About the 36%. Where was the poll conducted? In a prison which contained many people arrested for allegations of terrorism? The poll doesn't say. How was the question worded? "If someone left Islam, and a member of your family killed them: Would you report your family member to the police?" and counting "No" as "Supporting death penalty"? The poll doesn't say. Who conducted the poll? Here we have an answer: "Policy Exchange". They are in favour of Brexit, like UKIP. But even if the poll's aim was to measure opinions instead of making them: 36% of people in favour of the death penalty for apostates means that 64% are not in favour of the death penalty for apostates. That's a large majority. And we only have a narrow age bracket. It would be interesting to see how those polled at the time would answer to the same question today, now that they are older and more mature. So your only argument against this figure is that the poll was conducted by "Policy Exchange" and because they are in favour if Brexit they are likely to be lying, is that it? All your other points seem to be based on the fact that since you are uncomfortable about this number, you want more information on how they got it. And what is your "64% are not in favour of the death penalty for apostates" about? What do you think I am trying to argue here?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 21, 2018 17:41:12 GMT
For the interested (and lazy), here's the essentials: TBH, I'm not sure how compelling I find this argument in terms of "doubting" the polls; it's really just reducing the scope of the poll from "British Muslims" to "British Muslims in Muslim-concentrated areas," without providing any evidence that there would be any difference between them. I'd agree there might be, but that's not much of a basis to condemn the poll on. Still, it would be nice if there was another poll that could control for that variable (or even just test that specific variable). Not only that, but we also don't know the questions asked. My distrust of polls comes from reading Walter Krämer's excellent book "So lügt man mit Statistik" (how to lie with statistics), where an entire chapter is devoted to how formulating poll questions influences the result. He starts with an example about how in one survey, 95% of the German working population were against working on Saturdays, and in another survey from the same time, 72% were not against working on Saturdays. The answer: Two different polls. One conducted on the behalf of unions, the other on the behalf of employers. And the questions were formulated in a way to generate the desired results. To paraphrase Krämer: These polls don't want to measure opinions, they want to make it. Their numbers are best kept in the wastepaper basket. Therefore, when a poll says something about 36% in favour of the death penalty for apostasy, then I say: This number means nothing before I know what question was asked, and what possible answers there were.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jan 21, 2018 20:18:43 GMT
If the religious always out breed the non-religious and religion has been around for thousands of years... why are there any non-religious people at all?!? Surely they would have all long since disappeared? But we're actually seeing an increase in the non-religious in most western countries as even people born into religious families often reject their family's religion. So regardless of whether or not immigrants come in from Muslim countries or wherever, without a state and the entire structure of the country telling them they have to believe most people will make their own minds up and abandon their faith. Exactly. I find it telling that the posters who paint the boogeyman of islamization of Europe usually don't mention Spain, which at one time became a place under Islamic rule. And where is Spain today? Are seriously using this as an example?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 22:46:32 GMT
tpfkar The problem is Goz, you display blatant double standards. You call out Christianity for homophobic bigotry, yet you also say "it doesn't matter" what Muslims think because there aren't many of them. So does prejudice not matter unless it is by large groups of people? And why am I a bigot for calling out Islam and you not a bigot for calling out Christianity? Could it be because the people you call out are mainly white and the people I call out are mainly none white? I think thats it, isn't it? "I think thats it, isn't it?" Yeah, that's how you guys work. Try to flip and project your own racial hangups. As in "Meaning that the demographicsof the nation are shifting from British and European to African and Asian."How many Muslims are or have been on here ranting about gays and continuously crapping bugaboo wails? When they do come on board, they do get responses for any patent nonsense that they post, just like anybody else. The question on the table was "But what explanation are you offering for why certain minorities are overrepresented in certain crimes?"It's more a case of people like you taking advantage of racism to virtue signal and puff up your own self esteem, whilst implicitly treating non-white people like infants who need to be coddled and cossetted. "Racism is bad" is an easy win. It's picking the low hanging fruit. It's this tunnel-visioned focus on 'racism is really bad and nothing else matters' that gave Hillary Clinton the Democratic nomination and resulted in Donald Trump being elected.
|
|