Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

What a UKIP Britain would look like

158 replies to this topic
Carbonox
  • Carbonox

    Too weird to live but much too rare to die

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • Finland

#61

Posted 10 March 2014 - 04:18 PM

And here I thought mods were supposed to be people that are looked up to. Well, at least you proved that stereotype wrong.

 

While reading news from objective media sources (= anything that doesn't promote multiculturalism) I can find, almost daily, news items of how immigrants are causing trouble around the Western nations. Sometimes it's small things like bike thefts or drunken fights between different ethnic groups, but sometimes things escalate way too far. One of the worst examples I can think of in recent years is the murder of a British soldier committed by those Muslim converts. Surely there's no way to defend actions like that?

 

Then there's this: http://www.breitbart...mingham-Schools

 

And finally, there's the very bottom of the barrel, in the form of scum that call themselves the "Muslim Patrol". Seriously, what the *bleep* do they think they are? Going around the streets, ensuring people are following their moral code and their laws? What authority do they actually have to do any of this crap? None! We aren't Muslims, so we will not adhere to your moral standards, and will in fact fight against them if you continue shoving it down our throats like you're doing now.

 

I mean, I'm completely baffled when I just think how badly multiculturalism has messed up everything around Europe. What is going to happen to this civilization in just 10 or 20 years at this rate? Get the tear gas ready, you'll need it once the angry minority is starting to slowly turn into a majority.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    We are coven

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#62

Posted 10 March 2014 - 05:04 PM

Quantify "objective media sources". Are you claiming that your sources, none of which you've actually provided, are more "objective" than the academic works I've alluded to and which I'm more than happy to reference? If so, why and what are the implications for this? Are you, in effect, making the allegation that the majority of the academic community is conspiring to hide the truth about the effects of mass migration? If so, please support this with empirical evidence.

I hope you aren't counting breibart as one of your "objective" sources because it certainly isn't. It's commentary lies a good way right of centre-right. Not as bad as using Stormfront as a source like Gasmasks did but still, in no way "objective". In fact, the fact you insinuate it is objective brings into question your ability to accurately identify and understand bias.

Throughout this response you continue to confuse correlation with causation. You talk about petty theft and murder as if they were perpetrated in the majority by foreign national; in contrast the statistics from the 2011 census indicated that crime rates were roughly equivalent to proportions of population when social factors were taken into account. Then you use two examples of extremism that aren't representative of a wider community to reach the conclusion that the wider community cannot be trusted. Seemingly ignorant of the fact that the majority of individuals convicted in the UK or racially and religiously motivated acts of violence were actually white British nationals, and that murders motivated by Islamic fundamentalism in Europe are so infrequent compared to those involving neo-Nazism, anti-Semitism, sexism etc that they could be dismissed as a rounding error.

Lots of hot air and vitriol, very few actual points.
  • Melchior likes this

Carbonox
  • Carbonox

    Too weird to live but much too rare to die

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • Finland

#63

Posted 10 March 2014 - 11:13 PM

I kinda knew you'd bring up the Breitbart issue... It may be a controversial source, but at least they tell things like they are, as opposed to most of the mass media that seems to be afraid of being accused of racism, and thus always take a positive stance on multiculturalism. In my country, the rule of thumb is that state-sanctioned media sources are not to be trusted regarding crimes committed by immigrants, because there'll be lots of bias.

 

And you're willing to dismiss the violence committed by Muslims just like that? It's a growing problem that is already now getting too large to handle. Do you know how many "No-go zones" there already are in European towns? Want to take a guess on which religion is dominating those areas? Note I said religion, not ethnic group. Whether the people are white, black, Hispanic, Asian or Australian aborigines (that last one is highly unlikely though) there's one common factor here, which causes all of them to commit deplorable, even barbaric acts. I-S-L-A-M.

 

Don't even bother pulling the Islamophobe card. That's not even a word. Only a term coined by politicians to make criticism of Islam look like racism. And that's wrong too, because Islam isn't a race. I could hardly classify it as a religion even. It's a totalitarian system that is rooted so deep in its followers' minds that it literally controls their entire life. The ultimate goal of Islam is to take over the entire world and subject it to the barbarian Sharia law. No, you don't need to tell me it's all good because it only concerns Muslims. I've learned my lesson regarding that one. It's in direct conflict with the Western view of justice. Don't you want justice to be served in all cases? In Islam, the justice system is so screwed up, I can't help but think the Prophet had a little too much sand in his brain.

 

Get raped? You're the criminal and you will get the penalty, unless you can get 4 men to testify against the rapists. Leave the religion? You're getting stoned, you filthy apostate! Come out of the closet? You're absolutely getting stoned.

 

Nobody should want this type of trend to be on the rise in Europe. We have just managed to establish civilization, and now it's being destroyed from within because of the super-tolerant politicians taking in more and more radicals who are so utterly impossible to assimilate, it'd be easier to teach a lion to skate. I might as well buy me some guns, might be useful later unless the immigration-critical parties start to gain influence. (The upcoming EU election is looking rather promising!)


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#64

Posted 10 March 2014 - 11:30 PM

Rebutted? I never even got an answer to my previous message.

 

And by the way, I'm not too fond of your style, if you know what I mean. For a moderator, you sure insult people a lot and dismiss opinions because they come from "bigots". Is there any chance you're part of the so-called elite within the EU that thinks the people of Switzerland voted "wrong" regarding immigration policy?

The only acceptable way to deal with sh*t brained scum like you is to ostracise, mock and generally make you look bad.

 

Now I know I've been told to lay off the aggressive posting, but frankly f*ck you. I'll take a temp ban to call out pieces of sh*t like you, I'm a hardcore rebel I don't give a f*ck.

  • Melchior likes this

Carbonox
  • Carbonox

    Too weird to live but much too rare to die

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • Finland

#65

Posted 10 March 2014 - 11:39 PM

^The feeling is mutual, buddy. :^:


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#66

Posted 10 March 2014 - 11:46 PM

^The feeling is mutual, buddy. :^:

The difference is that I'm not a lower tier piece of sh*t who blames the weak for their problems. You're a f*cking scumbag and I pity any human being who has to deal with your sh*t in the real world.


Carbonox
  • Carbonox

    Too weird to live but much too rare to die

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • Finland

#67

Posted 11 March 2014 - 12:28 AM

Another difference is that while I have posted a bunch of arguments, you're completely incapable of that, and instead resort to petty insults like a little 'internet tough guy'. Come back when you reach puberty, then we can try to have a civilized chat about immigration.


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#68

Posted 11 March 2014 - 12:52 AM

Another difference is that while I have posted a bunch of arguments, you're completely incapable of that, and instead resort to petty insults like a little 'internet tough guy'. Come back when you reach puberty, then we can try to have a civilized chat about immigration.

Listen to me sweetheart, engaging you in any sort of discussion would lead you to believe that your racist garbage is anything but that. Anything you've said in this topic is provably false and goes to show what a horrible human being you are.


Kirsty
  • Kirsty

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Best Moderator 2014
    Most Respected 2014
    Most Helpful 2014
    Best Moderator 2013
    Most Helpful 2013

#69

Posted 11 March 2014 - 01:40 AM

Come on guys, this isn't general chat. I know it must be hard when you feel strongly about an issue, but less of the flaming and more constructive debates please, that is what this area is for.

  • Vercetti27 likes this

Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#70

Posted 11 March 2014 - 02:20 AM Edited by Myron, 11 March 2014 - 02:20 AM.

Come on guys, this isn't general chat. I know it must be hard when you feel strongly about an issue, but less of the flaming and more constructive debates please, that is what this area is for.

Sure, but I don't know what discussion can be had with a racist who refuses to accept that there isn't some major illuminati conspiracy lead by Jews to take over the world and enslave the white man.

 

In any case, If we're in the field of being snotty and abusing the report function, I'd like to point out the acronym c*nt flaps in this guy's signature.

  • Ari Gold likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    We are coven

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#71

Posted 11 March 2014 - 08:00 AM

I kinda knew you'd bring up the Breitbart issue... It may be a controversial source, but at least they tell things like they are

Utterly worthless as a statement in a debate. It's simply an opinion, nothing more. What you actually mean is that they conform to your pre-existing beliefs about immigration and social policy, and therefore you believe them to be "telling it like it is" simply because they're supporting a view you already happen to hold. Please refer to my earlier point, inability or unwillingness to accept the bias of one's own sources or views.

In my country

I'm not entirely sure I trust you to speak for all of Finland.
 

And you're willing to dismiss the violence committed by Muslims just like that?

What, by saying that it's statistically insignificant? Perhaps that's because it is?

Let's do a brief comparison based on ethnicity using the UK's 2008-2012 statistics for recorded criminal offences against the person and contrast with individuals who were proceeded against for indictable offences. Bear in mind that an outright majority of Asians in the UK are Muslim.

ZgsOgTq.png
YsKoRp2.png

Isn't that strange? Asians are, in percentage terms, significantly more prone to being victims of crime than they are being indicted for it.

It's a growing problem that is already now getting too large to handle.

Is it? Care to provide statistical evidence that violence perpetrated by Muslims is a "growing problem"?

Do you know how many "No-go zones" there already are in European towns? Want to take a guess on which religion is dominating those areas?

I don't know, maybe it's the same white European nationals who dominate all the criminal statistics?
The "no-go zone" idea is largely a myth. I've been to numerous places that are supposedly "no-go zones" for whites and never had an issue. Then again, I'm an educate, rational person with a familiarity with Islam in the context of Western society so I'm not unbelievably paranoid for no good reason.

which causes all of them to commit deplorable, even barbaric acts. I-S-L-A-M.

And now this is just descending into vitriol. We get it, you hate Muslims.

Don't even bother pulling the Islamophobe card.

Why not? You're basically a self-confessed Islamophobe. You've clearly got no understanding of the religion at all, so you're either an ignorant patsy for the right-wing media or are just content to express views on subjects you don't actually understand or have any familiarity with, in which case you're an idiot. Or you're wilfully ignorant of reality, empiricism and basic human decency in order to perpetuate your own ideology, in which case you're a bigot.

That's not even a word.

Well, it's existed in the English language since the 1920s and is in the Oxford English Dictionary, so again, please allow me to question your authority on what is and isn't a word.

I could hardly classify it as a religion even.

Well thank heavens that you're views on the subject are utterly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

The rest of your post simply continues to reinforce your ignorance. I particularly like the way that you ignore huge swathes of the Muslim world in your false characterisation of the religion. I take it you've never heard of Indonesia, Malaysia or the Philippines.
  • Detective Phelps likes this

Carbonox
  • Carbonox

    Too weird to live but much too rare to die

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • Finland

#72

Posted 11 March 2014 - 01:25 PM Edited by Carbonox, 11 March 2014 - 01:29 PM.

Now, sivispacem, I know I should probably use the quote system, but computer says otherwise, forums have been running slow for a while.

 

Should I start with the media source business? Right off the bat, that 2nd chart has its flaws. Since whites are a fairly clear majority (was it 86% of all of Britain) so it's fairly obvious they're going to top crime stats not because they're specifically more racist than others, but because of their massively greater numbers. It'd be more accurate if there was something that showed what percentage of each ethnic group has committed those crimes.

 

Speaking of objective sources, how about this?

 

http://www.statewatc...ism-arrests.pdf

 

Violence by Muslims, not a growing problem? Quite the contrary. The radicals are growing in numbers, not just through reproduction, but also because of some new converts that may turn out even more radical than your average jihadist.

 

No-go zones a myth? Really? Here's just one example of how things truly are starting to turn out in European suburbs:

 

http://www.brusselsj...l.com/node/2868

 

The biggest problem seems to be the fact that some minorities are way too easily aggravated and begin to riot instantly rather than try to settle things peacefully. Where's all the thankfulness for the quality of life that these people have received in the West?

 

Sure, go ahead then, call me an Islamophobe, a bigot, a racist. OK, well, preferably not racist as I already said Islam isn't a race. With the constant blaming, I don't think the discussion is going very far at the moment.

 

Not sure why you mentioned Philippines, a 80% Catholic country. In Indonesia, the Aceh territory is currently enforcing Sharia law on non-Muslims as well. Same is about to happen in Brunei. Isn't that in direct conflict with human rights? Religious law should absolutely never have any power over people who don't follow the religion in question.

 

I'd be OK with Muslims if they kept to themselves. But they don't. Their hatred of the West is far more irrational than my fear of a totalitarian system where human rights are being used as toilet paper.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    We are coven

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#73

Posted 11 March 2014 - 03:59 PM

1) Not entirely sure what point you're making in reference to the graphs. Your insinuation was that Muslims were disproportionately criminal and I merely demonstrated that, proportionally speaking, their ratio of involvement as the perpetrators of criminal activity was below the baseline given what percentage of the population they form, and that in a direct comparison they're much more likely to be victims of crime than their population numbers should infer.

2) The issue with this report is twofold. One, whilst concentrating on the religious argument you've lost sight of the initial discussion entirely- one of immigration. Note that the overwhelming majority of terrorist prisoners are British nationals? In the context of the actual topic, this is if anything an argument against the idea that foreign nationals are responsible for disproportionate amounts terrorism and violence.

Secondly there's the incredible disparity between your assertions and the evidence you use to support them. Firstly, the raw numbers of people imprisoned for terrorist offences are simply too small to support your claim that, because the majority self-identify as Muslims, then all Muslims must be terrorists. It's an absurd fallacy. Then there's the fact that the statistics don't support your claim that the problem is getting worse. In fact 2006-8 saw a decline in arrests, charges and convictions over 2004-5, which certainly isn't indicative of a worsening issue.

3) You cannot continue to assert that violence perpetrated by Muslims is a growing problem without demonstrating that it is indeed growing. Your source seems to suggest this isn't the case.

4) Did you even read the tag-line of your source regarding "no-go areas"? "The source for conservatism in Europe"? It's abundantly clear it's at best centre-right and therefore almost certainly eurosceptic and probably anti-immigration. Show me academic research coming to the same conclusion then we'll talk.

The rest of your post was just you continuing to make sweeping generalisations based on the actions of extremists and I have neither the time nor the will to be schooling you on proper debating etiquette. Suffice it to say, claiming that extremist organisations are completely representative of an entire broad coalition of religions, some of which I doubt you've even heard of let alone have the slightest bit of familiarity with, is not exactly your finest moment.

Perhaps you could point out to me all the vile acts that Sufism had inflicted on the West?
  • Detective Phelps likes this

Carbonox
  • Carbonox

    Too weird to live but much too rare to die

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • Finland

#74

Posted 11 March 2014 - 05:09 PM

I'm getting a bit tired of all my sources being shot down, but maybe this'll work out better. It's a PDF so I can't link to it directly, the best I can do is link to the google search where it was the 2nd from the top for me:

 

https://www.google.c...risons&safe=off

 

Whether the site has a political affiliation or not, do you really think they would be resorting to outright lying in a serious case like this? No-go zones are real - I have read enough about them to be convinced. This country is still relatively safe from them, but even here, a couple of suburbs in larger towns are becoming uninhabitable due to immigrant gangs, who probably think they can't get a job because of the color of their skin. In reality, the problem is they're dangerously aggressive, and nobody wants to associate with people like them.

 

And how would you comment on "white flight"? You know, white people moving out of a neighborhood, or in worse cases, even a town because crime is starting to get out of hand? Is that a myth too?

 

Sufism? That's just another example of how the Quran is able to corrupt people's minds. Sufists consider themselves to be Muslims, but oops, since they commit the capital sin of interpreting the holy book in the first place, and not necessarily adhering to the violent verses like the fundie nutcases do, suddenly they're being hated by the mainstream Muslim community.

 

I never mentioned it before but Finland has a small Tatar community who are all Muslims... but since they integrated to society and don't suffer from irrational Westophobia (see, I just invented a new word, now I have to make sure it's added to dictionaries) - in fact I don't know if any of them have even committed felonies - nobody minds that they're here. Generally it's common courtesy not to even mention them in the same sentence with the newer Muslim immigrants, who have a twisted view of sexuality and tend to follow the Quran to the letter, which I find worrying due to the violent verses directly commanding the killing of infidels. Which means us, by the way. It's interesting that some of them come here as "refugees" yet their views are just as radical as those of the people they claim to be fleeing from in the first place. Some of our immigrants have gone to Syria recently to fight on the rebels' side - frankly, I hope none of them come back. Except maybe in a coffin.

 

Also, what would be your view on Bilal Philips? Guy's been banned from entering a number of countries, including Australia, UK, Germany, Kenya and US. He's just about to make a visit to this country, and guess what he's doing? Preach some more anti-West hatred to the local Muslims. Way to go, that's what we definitely need right now. Worst part is, our left wing politicians don't even have the guts to judge this guy. Tolerate everything, including criminals and radicals, that's their message. It would be laughable if guys like him weren't such a serious threat to national security.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    We are coven

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#75

Posted 11 March 2014 - 05:48 PM

I'm getting a bit tired of all my sources being shot down, but maybe this'll work out better. It's a PDF so I can't link to it directly, the best I can do is link to the google search where it was the 2nd from the top for me:
 
https://www.google.c...risons&safe=off
 
Whether the site has a political affiliation or not, do you really think they would be resorting to outright lying in a serious case like this? No-go zones are real - I have read enough about them to be convinced. This country is still relatively safe from them, but even here, a couple of suburbs in larger towns are becoming uninhabitable due to immigrant gangs, who probably think they can't get a job because of the color of their skin. In reality, the problem is they're dangerously aggressive, and nobody wants to associate with people like them.


The problem with the argument that there's a higher percentage of foreign nationals in prisons than domestic citizens is that it doesn't take into account other factors. The conclusion you're reaching based on the raw statistics fails to take into account other contributing factors- like the fact that foreign nationals living in the UK are statistically more likely to live in neighbourhoods with high crime rates, be subject to discrimination or harassment or all manner of other contributing socioeconomic factors. It's simply a non sequitur argument.

I've simply seen no academic evidence supporting the idea that no-go zones actually exist in any meaningful way; or that these zones, should they exist, disproportionately involve Muslims. The entire argument seems to be based on conjecture- there are a number of areas in the UK that I wouldn't consider myself safe in but these are almost universally dominated by white, working (or non-working) class households with low social and economic status. I simply don't buy, nor have I seen any empirical evidence claiming, that there are proportionally more "dangerous" areas one would not wish to venture into under the control of Muslim gangs than any other racial, religious, social or economic group.
 

And how would you comment on "white flight"? You know, white people moving out of a neighborhood, or in worse cases, even a town because crime is starting to get out of hand? Is that a myth too?


The "white flight" phenomenon is regarded as largely myth in academic circles. It is, as is so often the case with points proponents of a anti-immigration agenda like to perpetuate, a non-sequitur argument. It falsely assumes that the movement of white people from neighbourhoods with high proportions of foreign migrants is a direct result of these migrants; in actuality studies by The London School of Economics indicate the opposite is the case; that cultural diversity and ethnic dispersal is driven by social and economic factors, and with an ageing domestic population blessed with increasing wealth, a movement away from typically multicultural urban areas towards the idyllic countryside is completely understandable. Allow me to quote from the paper:
 

White flight is unpersuasive because white British people who ticked the ‘English only’ national identity box on the census move from diverse to white areas – and vice-versa – at the same rate as those who chose British or a Celtic option. We know an English national identity is, for whites, associated with stronger anti-immigration attitudes and a greater propensity to vote for an anti-immigration party. The share of English identifiers among white British people in a Local Authority is, for instance, the strongest predictor of UKIP vote share in the 2010, 2011 and 2012 local elections. In order to explore this further, we repeated the exercise with the BHPS/UKHLS where there is a wider range of attitudinal measures. White British who vote conservative and those who vote Labour or Lib Dem move to white and diverse areas in equal measure. So do whites with conservative and liberal views on homosexuals, women’s roles, patriotism and redistribution. Ditto for white tabloid and broadsheet readers. So whites who prefer white areas are no more conservative than whites who plump for diversity, casting doubt on the white flight hypothesis.

Keen to explore determinants of movement with racial attitude questions, we commissioned a YouGov survey in August 2013 which asked people whether they moved ward in the past ten years, and if so, from a ward with more, less or similar diversity. We netted around 1700 white British respondents of whom about 200 said they had moved to a more or less diverse ward over the past decade. Whether the question asked about comfort with a boss of a different race or a Prime Minister of a different race, anti-immigration views or neighbourhood minority comfort thresholds, the result was the same. Namely, that racial and immigration attitudes had almost no effect on white mobility. Only at the conservative extremes did attitudes affect behaviour, but this was a marginal effect operating on 1 or 2 percent of the sample.

Commenting on our results in the Guardian after hearing our seminar at the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR), Hugh Muir suggests the evidence points to culture rather than race or income. We controlled for the urbanity and affluence of wards but not for their cultural capital. Karl Deutsch’s concept of the prestige direction of assimilation and Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of cultural capital suggest wards exert an ethnically-specific allure, regardless of physical amenities. White areas have some appeal for minorities provided they are not – like most of England and Wales – so white as to be intimidating; but diverse areas attract white British people only when they are in their twenties. The prestige direction of assimilation is toward the white British core, which accounts for why whites tend to choose whiter places when they move. White attraction rather than repulsion seems therefore to be the story.


Source
Pacific Standard report on the myth of white flight
Educational Policy, September 2007 vol. 21 no. 4 615-661 (paywalled)
Urban Studies, June 2006 vol. 43 no. 7 1127-1146 (paywalled)

There are numerous analyses of "white flight" in a historical context, in reference to the segregation-era United States, but very few academic studies claiming that such a modern phenomenon exists.


Sufism? That's just another example of how the Quran is able to corrupt people's minds. Sufists consider themselves to be Muslims, but oops, since they commit the capital sin of interpreting the holy book in the first place, and not necessarily adhering to the violent verses like the fundie nutcases do, suddenly they're being hated by the mainstream Muslim community.

So you're effectively admitting that your insinuation that all Muslims are violent extremists is entirely false? Good, glad we got that out of the way.
I'm not going to disagree with the notion that certain tranches of Islam do have violent aspirations, but by the same token so do certain tranches of other religions. Qutbism and Salafism are hardly representative of the majority of most Muslim's views and to pretend as such is somewhat akin to claiming that the Anti-balaka movement are representative of all Christians, and that Jagjit Singh Chauhan spreaks for all Sikhs.

Counter-radicalisation is an entire discipline of study that I'm only familiar with the outline of. That said, it's been remarkably successful where it has been employed. But that's an entirely separate issue.
 

Also, what would be your view on Bilal Philips? Guy's been banned from entering a number of countries, including Australia, UK, Germany, Kenya and US. He's just about to make a visit to this country, and guess what he's doing? Preach some more anti-West hatred to the local Muslims.

You see, this is the issue with living in a democratic, Western society. Individuals have the right to express their views as long as they aren't using them to infringe on the rights or security of other's. You may not like the individual views of the people involved, but there are far better ways to discourage people from listening to them than by banning them outright. The most effective method being hearty derision and mocking of stupidity and ignorance, preferably from a position of authority. Again, this comes under the more philosophical side of counter-radicalisation.
  • Detective Phelps likes this

Carbonox
  • Carbonox

    Too weird to live but much too rare to die

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • Finland

#76

Posted 20 March 2014 - 05:21 PM Edited by Carbonox, 20 March 2014 - 05:26 PM.

Well, I'm back. I haven't been picking up sources (and don't know if I should bother, given that you don't seem to accept anything) so I'll only counter some of your points this time.

 

The general problem I'm seeing here is that a lot of people - even some critical of religion - are claiming that a Muslim majority in the UK wouldn't be harmful and they'd be OK with it. I find it annoying, and not only because of the fact that no Muslim-majority countries in the world have ever been able to establish a stable society with a good quality of life. Why would Britain, or Sweden, or any other Western country suddenly be an exception to this? Not to mention the religion's totalitarian approach to politics, but more of that in a bit. First, I'll try to clear up my thoughts.

 

Let's make a rough analysis here. Way I see it, it's possible to divide the Muslims into 3 groups. Group A openly supports global Islamization and is ready to do violent and radical deeds to achieve that. Group B are the silent supporters, who don't participate in anti-infidel violence, but still support the Islamization movement by, for example, voting for radical candidates in elections, or just generally assisting them behind the scenes. Group C are the moderates, who disagree with the 2 other groups.

 

The problem we have here is that we have no idea how many Muslims are true moderates and whether they're only pretending to appear more sympathetic to the Western crowd. The main problem I see here is that the Quran openly permits lying and deceiving infidels if it's beneficial to Islam's spreading. This is the main reason I have so little trust to the "moderates" - even to them, the Quran tends to be the highest authority, and only after that comes the law of the land. And if the moderates really are such a huge majority amongst Muslims, why aren't they expressing themselves more clearly? Why is the allegedly tiny minority comprising of radicals so loud? We can all wonder about that...

 

Now, as for the totalitarianism. I think we can all agree that we have outlived that part in the world history where the Catholic church literally dominated Europe. With Islam still stuck in the 7th century, how can we expect that a Muslim majority wouldn't descend back to the Dark Ages and hold science back in order to islamize the entire continent? Unfortunately, given the fundies' nature, I doubt they'd want to be friends with the rest of the nation after becoming a majority. And speaking of the Dark Ages, I, for sure, believe that no rational person would ever follow the Quran rather than a peer-reviewed textbook, as it's completely filled with scientific errors that some consider to be true despite the overwhelming evidence (Flat earth? Sky can fall down on people? Earth orbiting the Sun? You can find almost every possible error in that book).

 

Back to Bilal Philips for one more comment... You do know that he's preaching hate towards infidels and wants them killed only because they don't share his faith? I'm pretty sure incitement to ethnic or racial hatred is a crime around here. So no, he doesn't exactly have the right to come here and say anything he wants.

 

Note: If the message appears confusing, it may be because I lost some text after accidentally going back to the previous page, and didn't remember all the stuff I had written, so I shortened the message. (I know there's an auto saving function but it didn't save some of the recent text, for some reason)


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    We are coven

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#77

Posted 20 March 2014 - 09:57 PM

I haven't been picking up sources (and don't know if I should bother, given that you don't seem to accept anything)

That's primarily an issue with the quality of your sources. So far you've largely relied on the right-wing media and commentators, very little with academic credence. When you have used reliable sources, you've tended to mis-represent them or draw conclusions from their statistics that aren't logically sound. But let's get back to the response at hand.
 

The general problem I'm seeing here is that a lot of people - even some critical of religion - are claiming that a Muslim majority in the UK wouldn't be harmful and they'd be OK with it.

Who is claiming this? It's fallacious anyway, as the very idea of a "Muslim majority UK" is utterly absurd and therefore represents little more than a hypothetical supposition. Where are you referring to as "here"? I hope it's not this thread, as that's a completely baffling misinterpretation of the views that have been expressed here.
 

and not only because of the fact that no Muslim-majority countries in the world have ever been able to establish a stable society with a good quality of life.

Well, this isn't factually accurate. Take Indonesia for example, which outranks many of its neighbours in the various freedom indices but is majority Muslim. There's also Northern Cyprus- again majority Muslim but ranking higher on many of the freedom indices than either Greece or Turkey. But even if we take the point that, proportionally, Muslim-majority nations are less likely than, say, Christian-majority nations in terms of freedom and stability, it still doesn't support the conclusion that the cause of this is Islam. Correlation does not equal causation.
 

Not to mention the religion's totalitarian approach to politics.

Disputed, this seems to be a point based on emotion and opinion rather than empiricism but let's come onto that in a bit.
 

Way I see it, it's possible to divide the Muslims into 3 groups. Group A openly supports global Islamization and is ready to do violent and radical deeds to achieve that. Group B are the silent supporters, who don't participate in anti-infidel violence, but still support the Islamization movement by, for example, voting for radical candidates in elections, or just generally assisting them behind the scenes. Group C are the moderates, who disagree with the 2 other groups.
 
The problem we have here is that we have no idea how many Muslims are true moderates and whether they're only pretending to appear more sympathetic to the Western crowd.

There have been numerous studies on the issue, actually. Every piece of independent research on the issue has come to the conclusion that anti-Western sentiment is purely a product of a very small minority who adhere to particular sects of Islam. As I pointed out before, you don't get extremist Sufis. You don't really get extremist Druze, or to be honest extremists in non-Takfir/Qutbist/Salafist schools of Sunni Islam. Or really that much Shia extremism- the major Shia terrorist organisations like Hezbollah aren't terrorist by virtue of their religion but are armed resistance movement to Western or Israeli interventionism and perceived expansionism, funded jointly by the Soviet Union and left-wing groups in Central and Southern Europe. There's no rational basis for assuming that all Muslims harbour these sentiments; to do so it simply discrimination. No different from me claiming that, because most Christians don't speak out against the actions of the kind of extremist who bombs abortion clinics or gay bars, they must be complicit.
 

The main problem I see here is that the Quran openly permits lying and deceiving infidels if it's beneficial to Islam's spreading. This is the main reason I have so little trust to the "moderates" - even to them, the Quran tends to be the highest authority, and only after that comes the law of the land. And if the moderates really are such a huge majority amongst Muslims, why aren't they expressing themselves more clearly? Why is the allegedly tiny minority comprising of radicals so loud? We can all wonder about that...

This is entirely dependent on what school of Islam they choose to follow. The Quran is the highest authority for all Muslims, yes, but each of the major and minor schools of Islam interprets it differently. There are numerous nations in which large Muslim populations live harmoniously alongside other religions- Benin, Ghana, Cyprus, Singapore. As for the question of why moderates aren't heard, this is simply explained by looking at the far right movement in Europe. Why is far-right extremism given so much coverage by national and international media when it finds support amongst such a small proportion of most populations? Simple- those who shout the loudest have the most attention payed to them. Compare with, say, fundamentalist Christianity in the US. Fundamentalism has come to characterise the American Christian Right over the last few decades and external observers lament this, even though in purely proportional terms these individuals don't make up a larger proportion of the population than they used to. Why do believers in conspiracy theories always insist on shouting their views from the rooftops? In absence of any reasonable discourse and intelligent discussion, people just raise their voices, and unfortunately the majority are either too ignorant or too poorly informed to understand that those who speak softly on a subject are usually the voices of intellectual authority.
 

With Islam still stuck in the 7th century, how can we expect that a Muslim majority wouldn't descend back to the Dark Ages and hold science back in order to islamize the entire continent?

I could say exactly the same about the fundamentalist Christian movement. They probably represent a larger proportion of active, self-described "Christian" religious believers in the US than Islamic extremists do Muslims in Europe, so surely the same argument applies to them? The simple fact of the matter, as just about anyone schooled on counter-radicalisation and counter-extremism, security studies and counter-terrorism studies will tell you, is that the media- particularly the right-wing media- has massively inflated the potential threat posed by Islamic extremism in Europe. More people have been killed and injured in the UK in the last 5 years by Republican paramilitary groups with a cumulative total of around 400 active members, than have Islamic extremists who by all accounts number in the low thousands- and by a factor of about 10. So tell me, statistically whose the bigger threat?
 

Unfortunately, given the fundies' nature, I doubt they'd want to be friends with the rest of the nation after becoming a majority.

Even if Muslims were to become a majority- and the've got a very, very long way to go as they represent on average about 6% of most European countries, who says they're the extremists? Non-sequitur argument.
 

And speaking of the Dark Ages, I, for sure, believe that no rational person would ever follow the Quran rather than a peer-reviewed textbook.

Which is all well and good, but the Quran isn't trying to be a scientific textbook. I've never met a Muslim of any kind who sees their religion as incompatible with science. I'm sure they exist but they certainly don't make a big song and dance about it like early-world creationists do. Not entirely sure what you're trying to get at here- you're either not making a point or it's another non-sequitur argument.
 

Back to Bilal Philips for one more comment... You do know that he's preaching hate towards infidels and wants them killed only because they don't share his faith? I'm pretty sure incitement to ethnic or racial hatred is a crime around here. So no, he doesn't exactly have the right to come here and say anything he wants.

I don't think I've ever heard Phillips directly call for the murder of, or violence against, others on the basis of their religion. He was very critical of Boko Haram and their attacks against the civilian population in Nigeria. He argued to justify suicide bombing in a strategic context, and also supported the notion of armed resistance against Western interventionism in the Arab world, but neither of those views constitute an incidement to ethnic or racial hatred. It's a fine line- on principle I don't disagree with the idea that he's a vile individual and a preacher of hate, but so are many people who speak for the European far right- the kind of people who blame fatal floods on the legalisation of gay marriage, or for that matter level unfounded allegations against Muslims purely on the basis of their religion.
  • dante財閥 likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    We are coven

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#78

Posted 09 April 2014 - 07:04 AM

ciccogol- you may notice your posts have disappeared. That's because I hid them. If you want to continue in this discussion, please do so without using homophobic language, without double posting and without discriminatory remarks.

Rown
  • Rown

    He who fights monsters

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2005
  • None

#79

Posted 12 April 2014 - 01:35 AM

Sivispacem is a ZIONIST allied with the LIBERAL media that only believes IN censoring the TRUTH.

:clinton:  :jackthompson:  :yee:  :bbq:  :r*:  :rah: 



OT:

 

Anyway is UKIP still on the rise or have things settled down over there? Austere-nationalism is a bit of a downer as an ideology. It's very cloistered and defensive and often coming across as a sort of 'gilded age of the white man' fetishism. Yes the homogeny was great but it's a terribly unsustainable model, I believe we're better off discovering what's at the other end of the multiculturalism tunnel, a way for peoples to co-exist without being complete assholes to one another and the rediscovery of adaptability. 

 

I'm in the mood to ride off the road entirely here so I'll suggest that such a scenario may require the downfall of the nation-state as we know it and the rise of a more fluid model of mass human relations. Nations will still exist they just won't have the same wherewithal to beat up on one another with impunity. I'm just not sure if such a world would come about after a spate of relative anarchy, with the fear of neighbor and peer response, or from a more centralized authority just assuming powers once considered matters of state.   

 

Rown :rampage: 


John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • None

#80

Posted 26 April 2014 - 12:44 AM

Look, I understand this section of the forum requires paragraphs of input to meet the standards, but I'm simply interested in the following, simple questions, that I don't imagine Gen Chat will provide (anything frankly):

 

With an honest answer- how do you guys think Farage faired with Clegg over these recent debates?

 

Why won't Cameron grant Farage a debate?


Josh
  • Josh

    I'm sitting in the middle waiting

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2010
  • None

#81

Posted 26 April 2014 - 02:59 AM Edited by Josh, 26 April 2014 - 03:00 AM.

Look, I understand this section of the forum requires paragraphs of input to meet the standards, but I'm simply interested in the following, simple questions, that I don't imagine Gen Chat will provide (anything frankly):

 

With an honest answer- how do you guys think Farage faired with Clegg over these recent debates?

 

Why won't Cameron grant Farage a debate?

 

I don't think this forum necessarily requires massive chunks of text in every post as long as you provide something to discuss, a jumping off point, if you will, which you have.

 

For your first question: I think the polls done after the second debate showed that Farage had a lead in the polls, with just under 70% of people thinking that he'd done the better of the two. Nick Clegg did gain marginally more positive comments on Twitter according to an aggregating site but I'm really not sure if that really matters considering the fact that people on Twitter are almost certainly more likely to be liberal and pro-Europe than the other groups that were surveyed for the Yougov poll, and the aggregating firm did no research to check if the people commenting were eligible voters or not.

 

From the small pieces of the discussion that I managed to catch (only from the second debate so I can't speak about the first) it seemed as if Clegg was trying too hard to shout Farage down and he was actually acting quite out of character in continuing to call Farage a 'fantasist' and repeating the same tired old anecdotes that didn't really seem to capture the audience. There was quite an interesting moment when he resorted to an ad hominem attack, and Farage rebuffed it to clapping from the audience, whose intelligence it seemed that Clegg underestimated.

 

The problem that I could see was that Clegg (in the second debate, after accusations that he didn't show enough passion in the first) became too focused on trying to goad and annoy Farage by continuously trying to badger him, and twisting words that he had previously said, rather than actually talking statistics and trying to show just how vital the UK's membership of the EU is at this particular time, and just how ridiculous UKIP policies are in other areas.

 

As for your second question, it's partly down to the fact that Clegg himself (from what I can see) put himself up for this debate. He has been the person from the big 3 who has spoken the most on the pro-EU side of the debate; he also had a lot less to lose in the terms of approval ratings since before this debate his party was running at only 10% in the polls, so he may have seen the debates as a win-win when it comes to his party's image, as it will reaffirm his position as the guy willing to take a stand on this issue.

 

Then there is the fact that the Lib Dems probably won't lose too many votes to UKIP in the next election -- the Tories would be worried about a split in the vote in places like the South-West, while Labour are worried that in certain areas in East Anglia and elsewhere they will lose large quantities of votes, so both parties may have been apprehensive about a head-to-head debate costing them. I can't see that happening for the Lib Dems as their support-base seems to be pretty entrenched, and they won't be competing with UKIP for the same voter bases.

 

There also may have been the perception in Cameron's camp that Farage was a secondary political figure, and that a debate with Clegg would be able to just knock him out of the picture without him needing to speak to the true leader of the government. In that sense it's possible that Cameron just didn't want to debate with Farage unless it was absolutely necessary -- for fear of alienating the more Eurosceptic members of his own party.

 

Sorry for the slightly incomplete argument by the way, and if there are any errors in presentation or punctuation then sorry for that too. It's a bit late now for me, but I hope I've at least provided a couple of points in answer to your questions that more politically aware members may be able to elaborate on.


ciccogol
  • ciccogol

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2011

#82

Posted 30 April 2014 - 03:47 PM

ciccogol- you may notice your posts have disappeared. That's because I hid them. If you want to continue in this discussion, please do so without using homophobic language, without double posting and without discriminatory remarks.

Not possible; a Serb is free wherever he goes, my dear. I will partake in any discussion I wish, but this is one I would rather avoid. It will be impossible to avoid replying to you without calling you a homo, so I wish you the best of luck in your life. 


Josh
  • Josh

    I'm sitting in the middle waiting

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2010
  • None

#83

Posted 30 April 2014 - 06:29 PM

I daresay that if you are unable to engage in a debate with somebody without calling them a 'homo' then you aren't really very good at debating.

  • dante財閥 likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    We are coven

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#84

Posted 30 April 2014 - 07:44 PM

Not possible; a Serb is free wherever he goes


Not according to:

Fraser Institute "Economic Freedom of the World index" (104 of 152)
Reporters Without Borders "Press Freddom index" (54 of 180, which sounds good until you realise that its 5 points lower than Italy and 8 lower than Haiti)
Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index (66 of 167, meaning they're a "Flawed democracy" slightly lower in the rankings than Mongolia)

Seems that, though a Serb indeed may be free on the internet, they're not really free in their own country.
  • Ari Gold likes this

dante財閥
  • dante財閥

    財閥

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2014
  • France

#85

Posted 05 May 2014 - 04:58 AM

The prospect of UKIP having any sort of influence in Britain is horrifying, but I'm positive it won't come to it.

 

I read an interesting article a while ago about the various ways in which the visible extreme right 're-package' themselves and move slightly along the spectrum so they appear more reasonable. I've never really read anything more true in regards to the political right in the UK, at least. The BNP look to fill a void, but are rejected for being too extreme. Along comes UKIP, a party that was once laughable to basically take up the BNP's cause with what appears to be a more 'reasonable' view when in actuality it is fairly similar. The same for Tommy Robinson, who left the extreme EDL to pursue other ways to mask his blatant racism. 


Josh
  • Josh

    I'm sitting in the middle waiting

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2010
  • None

#86

Posted 05 May 2014 - 07:03 AM

I think it's pretty normal for all parties, not just the extreme right, to move towards the median voter -- that's what got Tony Blair elected after all.

 

Also, UKIP and the BNP are not really similar. They are both pretty much single-issue anti-immigration parties, but the BNP's chosen target is Islam while UKIP's is the EU. The rest of their policies are pretty divergent in most areas, reflecting the different backgrounds of the leaders and their voters. The BNP is, racism aside, much further to the left of Labour economically, while UKIP is only moderately to the right of the Conservatives. This is reflected by their traditional support bases, and the parties from whom they tend to take the most votes.

 

Basically, UKIP plays to the Daily Mail crowd of retired former Conservative voters, while the BNP play to the Sun and Star crowd of working class people feeling disenfranchised by Labour. UKIP has started to take votes from the latter group of people recently, but I think that's more down to publicity than any conscious effort to co-opt the ideas of the BNP.

  • a20characterusername likes this

dante財閥
  • dante財閥

    財閥

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2014
  • France

#87

Posted 28 May 2014 - 06:51 PM Edited by Geth, 28 May 2014 - 06:52 PM.

I'm not sure I'd just flat out say that UKIP/BNP aren't really similar. UKIP have just provided a more palatable and mainstream form of racism. Besides after looking at the recent results UKIP votes have bitten into both Tory and Labour strongholds. They might come from different backgrounds but they are unified under a very similar ideology. It may seem like a lazy comparison to you but is it really that far out to call them similar parties? They both fear monger based off lies. They both have ties to racist and homophobic MP's. Is it really worth arguing against? I don't think it was unfair for me to say that at all. 

 

Also, I should point out I am aware of politics and policies of both parties. I feel like your post was a tad condescending. 


Daz
  • Daz

    Pirandello/Kruger

  • Cyclop 9
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2001
  • None
  • Best Poster [Gaming] 2014

#88

Posted 02 June 2014 - 11:12 AM

A lot of things on that list are hilariously dumb.

 

40% to be spent on defense. Ignoring renewable energy in favor for fossil fuels. These two things alone are completely moronic and must only be because they are being funded by companies that rely on that, like Haliburton, BAE, BP and pointless sh*t like fracking.

 

The only thing that didn't sound obsurd to me was possibly reverting the pistol ban. Because it should never had happened in the first place. At the very least allowing us to use .22 caliber pistols. It is hilarious that our own olympic team can't even train in the UK due to such restrictions. There would be no change to any potential threat than we have now, they were on licenses before, like any other firearm is now. All that would change is that people would have a whole new avenue to enjoy their sport. Especially those that only have access to an indoor range that only allows pistol calibre rifles.

 

I am totally in favor for new parties and groups having a say and been taken into consideration but if only just basing my judgement of them off the above two reasons they really seem brainless and ignorant. It sounds like they want to turn the country into an old gentleman's club and relive the glory days when they could shoot guns, smoke in pubs and have a massive military.

 

f*ck letting people smoke in pubs, how about completely removing any negative legislation for people who use E-cigarettes.

 

I barely know f*ck all on the subject but I just had to comment on those points.

  • Finite likes this

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013
  • Vietnam

#89

Posted 15 June 2014 - 11:15 AM

UKIP aren't anything to worry about. For all the news media loves to make a song and dance about them, their actual performance is incredibly poor. Look past the narrative bias of news and you find they got trampled on even by the greens.

 

Just about the only support they ever get is from the whims of no-information voters, and the few crackpot racist loonies. It's not even a surprise, given that their policies are explicitly about removing the legal rights which protect the quality of life of the overwhelming majority of people. "Vote for me and I'll steal your maternity leave" is not a winning proposition.

  • Ari Gold likes this

Zook
  • Zook

    Banter

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2008
  • United-Kingdom

#90

Posted 18 October 2014 - 02:35 PM

http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people 

 

Policy highlights from their Doncaster conference. What's everyone's opinion? I really don't think they are taking climate change seriously enough.  





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users