More than half of British Muslims say homosexuality should be outlawed

Scroll to see replies

Reply 340

hannah097

Original post by ivybridge

Except I didn't say that? I said that's potentially why they do. You are incoherent - do one.

Yah sure.

Reply 341

TheTechN1304

Original post by Frank Underwood

How does hating relentlessly on a 1.5 millennia old religion, which evidently is no longer followed to the word by the majority of western Muslims, actually helping the situation?

Well bringing attention to it is better than pretending it doesn't exist.

Reply 342

mariachi

Original post by digistar_100

It might be accepted in atheism which has no ultimate law maker and you act on whatever desire you wish to fulfil

this is ridiculous. No atheist thinks that there is no need for laws limiting individual freedoms

Original post by digistar_100

but it will never be accepted in Islam.

well, who knows what the future holds in store for us ? I don't, and neither do you. Never say never

Original post by digistar_100

And pushing young Muslims to deviate and purposefuly blur the ones about what is acceptable and not won't get you far either

young Muslims will make up their own minds on which texts to follow or not, how to interpret them or not and how to live their religion. What we say here is completely irrelevant as to what will happen.

Original post by digistar_100

As for the article it shouldn't be surprise to anyone nor a threat. We aren't suddenly going to take control of the country overnight, these are passive opinions.

passive opinions should not be disregarded. They have a tendency to become active, and you can always rely on some fringe elements to think it is their duty to do so. And they can stop being "fringe" at some moment

best

Reply 343

BaconandSauce

Original post by digistar_100

It might be accepted in atheism which has no ultimate law maker and you act on whatever desire you wish to fulfil but it will never be accepted in Islam. And pushing young Muslims to deviate and purposefuly blur the ones about what is acceptable and not won't get you far either.

As for the article it shouldn't be surprise to anyone nor a threat. We aren't suddenly going to take control of the country overnight, these are passive opinions.

You are in a country where gods law is irrelevant

But yes it will be and slowly it is (hence it not being 100%)

But yes it will only through common values can we have a society where all are treated equally

But don't change, don't care, just don't complain when you are treated like social pariahs you will be made into.

Reply 344

Frank Underwood

Original post by KingBradly

How does restlessly being intellectually dishonest not eventually make you feel like a total asshat?

Dishonest about what? Am I an 'asshat' for not submitting to your theories that Islam is taking over the UK or something?

Reply 345

reinaadira

Original post by muslimstanisyed

LOL Daily mail gonna dailymail

You can't celebrated Eid "Mubarak"
It is simply Eid

Reply 346

reinaadira

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

Well it's never going to be outlawed whether they want it to or not :biggrin:

That's true but there are so many people that think the same thing, not just Muslims, though it may seem "most" of them do

Reply 347

KingBradly

Original post by Frank Underwood

Dishonest about what? Am I an 'asshat' for not submitting to your theories that Islam is taking over the UK or something?

It's pretty disingenous to say "the daily mail lies" (or something to that effect) when there is clearly a link to the same study in a Sunday Times article below it, and a quick Google search shows that it is also being reported in The Guardian and a number of other news magazines. If you're going to begin with blatant intellectual dishonesty, why even bother having a discussion? It's self-evident that you're not interested in the truth, which is why I never bother to engage in any kind of discussion about Islam with you because I know it won't be a dialectic.

Reply 348

Frank Underwood

Original post by KingBradly

Newspapers publish articles which sell. And it sells good to blame your problems on 'dirty dirty muslims / refugees'. They have an agenda behind this, the majority of the publishers probably couldn't care less about what happens but they are out there to make a profit. Consider the actual purpose of writing that article, the Daily Mail and Sunday Times are not reputable for their accuracy on stories - the former has been sued many times and is criticised often for false stories, I don't know so much about the latter but from a quick glance over the linked article, it doesn't seem that it is any different. So reconsider your idea of the Daily Mail as a 'truth purporter' because they are out there for profit.

And go ahead, walk away and ignore anything I have to say if it makes you feel like your argument is stronger without my criticism. But the reality won't disappear or manifest itself into the form you wish just because you want to ignore it. The reality is that the Daily Mail's prime agenda is to make money, its second agenda is to put forward its right-wing conservative views - which appeal to a large number of right-wing British people who have a limited perspective on the world, who have never been to another country and who refuse to accept other cultures.

You can go ahead and tell me that the Guardian or any other newspaper has similar bias, which is true, but the Daily Mail has a reputation for fabricating stories and constantly exaggerating issues for the less-informed reader. I've seen more Daily Mail and Daily Express articles on ISIS than any other newspaper, they focus on scaremongering and keeping the right-wing reader aware of the problems in the world, and these intermediate articles which criticise a religious / ethnic group based on one poll essentially serve as a bridge for its readers - to establish a false link between Islam and ISIS when it comes to their actual aims / beliefs.

Call that intellectually dishonest if you can't be bothered to reply, but just know that the world isn't one-dimensional and the Daily Mail certainly does not have the 'truth' as its first agenda.

Reply 349

BaconandSauce

Original post by Frank Underwood

Newspapers publish articles which sell.

Massive straw man fail

The newspapers didn't commission this report

as you have been told Frank you are intellectually dishonest

Reply 350

Frank Underwood

Original post by BaconandSauce

Massive straw man fail

The newspapers didn't commission this report

as you have been told Frank you are intellectually dishonest

Nitpicking will get you nowhere, I'm talking solely about the Daily Mail's reputation, its difficult to respond to an argument when you only attack what you want.

Reply 351

BaconandSauce

Original post by Frank Underwood

Nitpicking will get you nowhere, I'm talking solely about the Daily Mail's reputation, its difficult to respond to an argument when you only attack what you want.

It's called the facts Frank

If you weren't so dishonest you'd understand what we were trying to tell you.

Reply 352

Frank Underwood

Original post by BaconandSauce

It's called the facts Frank

If you weren't so dishonest you'd understand what we were trying to tell you.

All I understand is that you take 1% of a message I write and attack that 1% and ignore the 99% because you have no feasible way of disproving it.

Goodbye, don't respond to my posts

Reply 353

BaconandSauce

Original post by Frank Underwood

All I understand is that you take 1% of a message I write and attack that 1% and ignore the 99% because you have no feasible way of disproving it.

Goodbye, don't respond to my posts

if the first 1% is wrong the the rest will be as well frank given you base your argument on that 1%

Reply 354

KingBradly

Original post by Frank Underwood

Newspapers publish articles which sell. And it sells good to blame your problems on 'dirty dirty muslims / refugees'.

Intellectual dishonesty No. 1: Hyperbole.

Original post by Frank Underwood

They have an agenda behind this, the majority of the publishers probably couldn't care less about what happens but they are out there to make a profit.

Given that The Guardian is left-wing and very defensive of Muslims, why would they be interested in this agenda?

Original post by Frank Underwood

Consider the actual purpose of writing that article, the Daily Mail and Sunday Times are not reputable for their accuracy on stories - the former has been sued many times and is criticised often for false stories, I don't know so much about the latter but from a quick glance over the linked article, it doesn't seem that it is any different.

Intellectual dishonesty No. 2: Not addressing the fact that The Guardian reported it, even after I mention it, while treating the study as if it was invented by the Daily Mail/Sunday Times (The Independent also reported it, but who's got time to learn about things which don't neatly fit into one's agenda?) when every article states it was conducting by ICM on behalf of Channel 4.

Original post by Frank Underwood

So reconsider your idea of the Daily Mail as a 'truth purporter' because they are out there for profit.

Intellectual dishonesty No. 3: Straw-manning.

Original post by Frank Underwood

And go ahead, walk away and ignore anything I have to say if it makes you feel like your argument is stronger without my criticism. But the reality won't disappear or manifest itself into the form you wish just because you want to ignore it. The reality is that the Daily Mail's prime agenda is to make money, its second agenda is to put forward its right-wing conservative views - which appeal to a large number of right-wing British people who have a limited perspective on the world, who have never been to another country and who refuse to accept other cultures

You can go ahead and tell me that the Guardian or any other newspaper has similar bias, which is true, but the Daily Mail has a reputation for fabricating stories and constantly exaggerating issues for the less-informed reader. I've seen more Daily Mail and Daily Express articles on ISIS than any other newspaper, they focus on scaremongering and keeping the right-wing reader aware of the problems in the world, and these intermediate articles which criticise a religious / ethnic group based on one poll essentially serve as a bridge for its readers - to establish a false link between Islam and ISIS when it comes to their actual aims / beliefs.

Call that intellectually dishonest if you can't be bothered to reply, but just know that the world isn't one-dimensional and the Daily Mail certainly does not have the 'truth' as its first agenda.

Intellectual dishonesty No. 4: Trying to divert the discussion into a rant about the Daily Mail, and not addressing the actual study itself.

Yeh, this is why I don't bother discussing anything with you. Cya.

Reply 355

Frank Underwood

Original post by KingBradly

Intellectual dishonesty No. 1: Hyperbole.

Given that The Guardian is left-wing and very defensive of Muslims, why would they be interested in this agenda?

Intellectual dishonesty No. 2: Not addressing the fact that The Guardian reported it, even after I mention it, while treating the study as if it was invented by the Daily Mail/Sunday Times (The Independent also reported it, but who's got time to learn about things which don't neatly fit into one's agenda?) when every article states it was conducting by ICM on behalf of Channel 4.

Intellectual dishonesty No. 3: Straw-manning.

Intellectual dishonesty No. 4: Trying to divert the discussion into a rant about the Daily Mail, and not addressing the actual study itself.

Yeh, this is why I don't bother discussing anything with you. Cya.

To call this 'intellectual dishonesty' it in itself hyperbolic, so try again.

Your point about the Guardian is unclear so I'll have to assume you're talking about the Guardian. They adopt left-wing views because of its writers, who are evidently more concerned about the issues and less concerned about the income - given that they don't have the massive circulation of the Daily Mail, its evident that profit isn't a priority for them.

But keep spamming 'intellectual dishonesty' if it makes your argument seem more robust to you.

And let me remind you that you were the one who replied to me in the first place, so don't cry to me about how you won't discuss with me when you were nitpicking a discussion I was having with another user in the first place.

People on here have a tendency to jump into a discussion and nitpick what they want and back out when they realise how hollow their point actually is.

But i'll make it easy for you and block you, you've obviously got nothing to say other than that I am somehow 'intellectually dishonest' for pointing out that the Daily Mail has an agenda beyond correctness, given that it circulates more than 1.5 million.

Reply 356

champ_mc99

Original post by garfeeled

But that is discriminatory against paedophiles. We are saying that their sexuality is fundamentally immoral and perverse and shouldn't be permitted by them or by the state or society as a whole to manifest as something physical.

The difference is that pewdophilic relationships are inherently harmful to the children involved whilst no so true with homosexual relationships.

I'm not arguing against homosexuality.

But what I am saying is, if someone believes another is committing to an immoral act in their own view (e.g. religiously) but doesn't discriminate them and respects their persona up to an extent that they befriend one another, then I don't see why it should be considered homophobia. For example, there are Muslims that will befriend Christians despite Christians committing an Islamic sin (e.g. believing in a son of God). And of course vice versa: the Muslims may be committing sins under laws of Christianity. But just because there are differences among each of these communities, there's no discrimination really involved.