Has multi-culturalism really been a failure?

Scroll to see replies

DanB1991

I agree with sentiment that multi-culturalism will only work if cultures are willing to live and work side by side, but I'd argue that most immigrant demographics have done just this. The only immigrant demographic which has made terrorist plots, or turned schools into a pits of misogyny and conservatism, or regularly staged horribly malicious protests like the one in the video, are the hardline Muslims.

Different demographic's have... some have not. Muslims and indian for example do tend to stick to their own community and cultural group, Sometimes quite aggressively so.

Reply 41

KingBradly

Ok lets have some fun and break down your argument. This is going to be a real laugh.

Original post by Fizzel

First of all you still haven't addressed media bias, Islam stories are more interesting to the public so they run more, and you haven't addressed how there are 10 times as many Muslims as Sikhs. You expect to find 10 times as many incidents as there are ten times as many people. Half the links you have given are irreverent anyway, they show difference of opinion not intolerance, your own link to the independent shows the difference. You are still, as other have said, drawn an arbitrary line on what are isolated incidents of breaching of peace and harmony and a generalisation.

This is an absolutely hilariously poor comment.

First of all, you have to actually show some evidence that Islam stories are more likely to be run. Otherwise this is just a baseless claim, as you would say.

Secondly, the links I have given show many Muslims have intolerant opinions. Intolerant opinions are intolerance. Their intolerant opinions are probably a big part of why hate crimes towards homosexuals went up 80% when Muslims began living in the area, as explained in the Telegraph article. Do you understand? If you hate gays, you're more likely to beat them up. Funnily enough, people who don't hate gays, don't usually want to beat them up. Also, do you have some evidence to back up that Sikhs commit only 10 times less hate crimes?

Additionally, please explain to me how the difference between random crimes that happen to be committed by people of certain religions, and opinion polls specifically conducted on members of a certain religion, is 'arbitrary'. People commit crimes, no matter what religion. It doesn't tell you anything about Sikhs if one Sikh bloke randomly bludgeons his wife to death. But if you do a survey of 1,500 Muslims and not one of them says they think being gay can be considered moral, then that is obviously telling you something about the Muslim population. If you can't understand this, then I consider you see your doctor to check you haven't got some kind of brain damage.

Original post by Fizzel

Again, basis? I don't think shunning Anjem Choudary or Abu Hamza is at all taboo.

This is a very poor argument. Slamming an individual for acting like a complete prick is not the same as slamming an ideology. Its also noteworthy that Anjem Choudary is allowed to spout whatever homophobic, misogyinistic, xenophobic drivel he likes on daytime TV. People like Tommy Robinson are allowed on daytime TV, but they have to censor their opinions.

Original post by Fizzel

That is what you think but without basis for the reasons or the post involved its not evidence. If you've breached rules while discussing Islam they are perfectly valid.

Make your own mind up (I'm sure you'll say I deserved them no matter what, mind you).

Original post by Fizzel

Even the term Islamophobic is debated, and whether its actually appropriate as a term. I just read an article on Islamophobia on the Guardian, in the comment's section the highest rated comments are all direct criticisms of the religion directly. Even among the Guardians lefty tolerant readership they are willing to call out the religion, I doubt the Telegraph, Mail or Times would be softer.

Comments on a website are not the mainstream media. Until the term 'Islamophobia' stops being used by BBC News, I would still consider it taboo to criticize Islam.

Just because the vast majority of Victorian men in London regularly had sex with prostitutes, doesn't change the fact that sex was very taboo at the time. (Please actually try and take in how this example is relevant, I know you find logic and reasoning difficult to comprehend).

Original post by Fizzel

I'm not infuriated, I've made multiple post very critical of Islam, extremists, Palestinians, the Taliban, my support for Drone warfare. I'm just calling you out on sloppy posting as I do across the board on any subject.

You seem to be fairly infuriated. At least I hope that's the reason why your responses seem to have so little thought put into them.

Original post by Fizzel

Universities are arenas of debate, one which simply silences any talk is a pretty bad one. UCL's union got torn a new one over this as the issue had already been addressed in advance, the University stepped in an banned future seating arrangements.

This is irrelevant to the point I was making. This is the first instance where you seem to have completely ignored the point of my argument. Maybe this would be a better way to explain it: a university would never allow a Neo-Nazi to come in and tell all the black and white students to sit apart (and no, don't make a weasel argument and say I need evidence, unless you were born yesterday you know this is patently true). But they did let an Islamic speaker come in and tell the men and women to be segregated. Moreover, if that professor hadn't protested, they would have allowed it to continue. Who knows how much of this stuff goes on where people don't stop it from happening?

And please don't give me any argument about how segregating black and whites is worse than segregating men and women, or that the Islamic speaker was more justified because of the delusional ideas he calls religion. I see them as equally bad, so that won't fly with me.

Original post by Fizzel

Its perfectly relevant unless you applying a double standard which is exactly what I'm saying you are doing. By sidestepping it you're proving my point.

Yep, you've completely misunderstood the point I was making. You said the vast amount of church goers were homophobic not long ago, yes?

So that's in the past, yes?

So there's no point in complaining about that now, because its in the past. But for the Muslims, it isn't, so that's why I'm criticizing them specifically, yes?

Make sure you read that a few times so you can fully get your head round it. I know its pretty complex stuff.

Original post by Fizzel

You've seen widespread homophobia in the Christian and Jewish communities/religion. How exactly is this different from the views you posted in your links in the Muslim community? A small number of Muslims who act upon their beliefs doesn't change the views of the majority who the same as many in the Church and Jewish community are homophobic but keep their views to themselves.

Yes, you said it, they all keep their views to themselves. But clearly there is a small minority of the Muslim community who don't. This is why I'm complaining about hardline Muslims. There are also far more fundamentalist Muslims in this country than there are fundamentalist Christians and Jews, which are very few and far between these days. I guarantee that a much higher percentage of Christians and Jews are ok with homosexuality than Muslims. And don't say I need evidence to back that up, you know full well that's case. As you said yourself, the vast majority of church goers were homophobic 'not long ago'. So you must understand that most aren't now.

Original post by Fizzel

A Taboo is also defined as

That's purely pedantic. You know what I mean when I say taboo, I'm using it how it is commonly used. Don't be so petty as to argue over semantics.

Original post by Fizzel

The fact its in a national newspaper, as it was with the Huffpost as you provided, the Telegraph as you provided show its neither prohibited or forbidden.

Page 3 is in a national newspaper too, and that's currently pretty taboo. Also, both of those articles are very careful not to actually criticize Islam.

Original post by Fizzel

I'll just take your word for that shall I?

This isn't a counter argument. If you believe my speculation is wrong, show me why it is.

Original post by Fizzel

First of all it accused police not shows, and second of all the fact its in an article goes some way to proving that such matter are being reported on, hence it being in a report.

This is embarrassingly poor logic. Do you know where crime statistics come from?

If the police are covering stuff up, then the crime statistics are gonna be false. Do you understand? If the police are covering up crimes, that means the crimes aren't being officially reported, so the crime statistics are obviously going to be wrong. Pretty simple stuff huh?!

Also, this is ONE article on a matter that otherwise wouldn't have been reported if the police hadn't been found out to be covering up the information. So no, it doesn't prove your speculation that these sorts of things are reported on. Also, I wasn't saying the papers were covering up information, I was obviously meaning that the police were (seeing as the police were actually the ones covering up the information). If you think this is likely to be an isolated case you are incredibly naive. In any case, it makes it very clear that no-one has a real idea of how much of this stuff may be going on.

Original post by Fizzel

Yeah, and people are scared of the IRA. A small group of hardliners didn't represent the Catholic church.

They don't represent the Catholic church. But they do say something about it.

Original post by Fizzel

Politicians are scared of making blanket statement on Muslims because they will get called out just as you are being.

You accuse me of making baseless claims and then you come out with this crap. It doesn't even make sense. If they thought they were right, why would they be worried about being called out? I thought you said that being against Islam and Muslims is really popular and common, so surely it would earn them loads of support... Unless of course, you were talking out your arse, and criticizing Muslims is in fact quite taboo...

Original post by Fizzel

By a member of a terrorist network. Its about as representative of the average Muslim as the IRA are of average Irish Catholics.

As I said earlier in the post, I think it does say something about Catholics as a demographic. Catholicism is well known for being one of the most steadfast and insular Christian sects. Its bound to produce a few extremist nutters. Also, the IRA are more about politics than Catholicism.

Original post by Fizzel

Yes because it an unnecessary insult to millions of people, for the sake of proving you can.
It was the main criticism of the draw Mohammed day which was perfectly legal. Its not sticking it to fundamentalists its just insulting every Muslim for the sake of it.

Here you are indisputably defending Muslims for sending death threats and endangering the life of a young woman because she made fun of their prophet. People make fun Jesus all the time. Do they deserve to be stabbed to death for it like Theo Van Gogh? I personally believe in freedom of speech. People should be able to make fun of anything they like.

Original post by Fizzel

You are again stating group as it the support and aim to murder is homogenous.

Nope, that's not what I was implying. You also didn't answer the question.

Original post by Fizzel

IAny argument requires evidence.

I have actually given lots of evidence in the form of opinion polls and crime statistics, which I am basing my speculations on. If you are to criticize my speculations then you must come up with evidence that counters it. That's how arguments work. If I hadn't provided any evidence then your response would be appropriate, but I have, so stop 'weaseling out' of the points I'm making and actually confront them with your own evidence.

Original post by Fizzel

You've missed the point. It wasn't that criticism of the BNP isn't allowed, it was your statement that criticism of one makes you a bigot and the other doesn't.

No one has ever been called a bigot for criticizing BNP. Everyone knows that people get called bigots for criticizing Islam. Stop being a weasel and pretending you don't know this to be true. It only takes a quick google of 'islam' and 'bigot' to produce hundreds of websites and pages accusing those who criticize Islam as bigots, with only a couple accusing Muslims as bigots themselves. Now type in 'BNP' and 'bigot'. The only people getting called bigots are the BNP themselves. You know perfectly well that no one ever gets called a bigot for criticizing the BNP. Stop evading the argument with this pettiness. Would I also have to prove to you that most people don't like the Nazis? No, of course I wouldn't. There are some things that are just patently obvious and one doesn't need evidence to back them up. You're clearly just doing this because you don't actually have a counter argument.

Original post by Fizzel

Anyone? You don't think anyone on TSR supports the BNP or UKIP as you have previously associated? I'm pretty sure you could start a thread about how Islam's intolerance for homosexuals is not compatible with modern Britain and get widespread support.

More horribly bad logic. This insinuates that believing that Islam's intolerance of homosexuals is unacceptable means you're likely to support the BNP or UKIP, which is obviously not the case. Morover, I don't think the BNP or UKIP are particularly concerned with LGBT rights. Criticizing far-right aspects of an ideology doesn't mean you are far-right, funnily enough.

Original post by Fizzel

Its 100% relevant, as fact a few act upon their belief does not change the fact most do not.

Yup, you completely missed my point. Things that happened in the past aren't relevant in this context, as I am only concerned about the religion which is currently causing the most problems.

No, it doesn't change the fact that most Muslims do not cause problems. But again that's irrelevant. Muslims are the religious demographic causing the most problems in this country. Muslims are the ones staging these kinds of protests. Muslims are the ones ones who cause homophobic violence to rise 80% when they move into an area. No, most Muslims don't cause any harm. But currently, in the UK, most religious people who do harm in the name of their religion are Muslims. I have backed this up with various pieces of evidence throughout the thread.

Original post by Fizzel

You still are ignore the fact the vast majority of the nations 3 millions Muslims are not out protesting, as the vast majority of Sikhs weren't involved in the riots. You still have Jewish text and Jewish leaders, Christian text and Christian leaders stating intolerance along the lines of sexuality being perfectly acceptable in your book. The Church of England have only recently allowed female bishops in the face of media pressure. How are these intolerant beliefs more acceptable?

They aren't acceptable. But Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Jews and Christians are both decreasing in number in this country, so I am far less worried about them. They also don't produce hardliners who stage protests saying Britain should burn in hell, or bomb buses, or run schools where girls have to sit behind boys and wear veils

Original post by Fizzel

The religious text they cling to is even older, how exactly has it progressed. The views of the religion haven't changed they are written down Leviticus is still the same as it was 200 years ago.

You so utterly miss the point here I wonder if you are able to properly comprehend English. I'm not saying anything about their religious texts. And how the hell do you think Leviticus is going to change no matter how many years its around? What on earth are you even talking about?

I'm saying that morally and intellectually, Muslims are at where Jews and Christians were 200 years ago. A large amount of Jews and Christians aren't against homesexuality, a large amount of Christians and Jews are not against sex before marriage, and most Christians don't believe in creationism, especially in this country (and don't pretend you don't know this to be patently true). As the Independent showed though, most Muslims aren't ok with homosexuality or fornication.

Original post by Fizzel

The Vatican sent thousands to fight wars in the crusades, the Bible doesn't condemn slavery, the Hebrew bible sets our rules on it and how badly you are allowed to beat slaves, and when its acceptable to burn women to death, how much less women are worth than men. How comes these don't have effects on the Jews who worship this text?

Yes, these are all true. However, none of them have prophets who were mass murderers though do they? When someone acts truly Christian (as in they try to act as Christ did) they act like their prophet, who was written as being a very kind, humble, loving and non-judgmental person. When someone is truly Muslim, they idolize Muhammad, who killed people, beat his wives, kept slaves, and even married a 9yr old girl. I know you can't accept this, but it is fact.

So there we go, I answered. Hopefully you can now understand why I couldn't be bothered to reply to you.

Reply 42

KingBradly

Original post by Fizzel

We've been fighting a decade long war on terror against fundamentalist Islam its a popular topic, you'd expect to find stories related to current affairs. Its like suggesting there is no more likelihood if finding flooding stories compared to hurricane stories in the middle of a flood.

Its not a claim, its a counter to a claim.

I will reply to the rest of your comment tomorrow, but I just want to point out this first point is wrong. It is not a counter to any claim that I made. I said that crimes may be covered up by the police, but I never said that violence by Muslims was under-reported. So this claim was something that you made up entirely on your own, and therefore you do need to back it up.

I don't believe violence by Muslims is either under-reported or sensationalized. When this happened it didn't get a huge amount of publicity. Perhaps slightly less than you would expect for such a shocking crime. Also, honour killings usually don't make it to national TV news. I think Islamic crimes or crimes perpetrated by Muslims get exactly the same amount of media coverage as crimes by anyone else.