Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

More than half of British Muslims say homosexuality should be outlawed Watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by muslimstanisyed)
    LOL Daily mail gonna dailymail
    You can't celebrated Eid "Mubarak"
    It is simply Eid
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Well it's never going to be outlawed whether they want it to or not
    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
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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%
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Title is horribly inaccurate btw
    18% disagree with homosexuality being legal.
    http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/10/half-o...legal-5807066/
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Ravenous;64091833]Title is horribly inaccurate btw
    18% disagree with homosexuality being legal./QUOTE]

    Huh? The article says

    It found that 52 per cent of those quizzed disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain.
    And the title is

    More than half of British Muslims say homosexuality should be outlawed
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=BeastOfSyracuse;64091931]
    (Original post by Ravenous)
    Title is horribly inaccurate btw
    18% disagree with homosexuality being legal./QUOTE]

    Huh? The article says



    And the title is
    But the chart in the article only says 18%.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BenC1997)
    You didn't read the OP very well, it polled 2000 Muslims.

    And don't say "it's not big enough" or "it doesn't represent everyone's belief," because that is how samples work.
    Well I would say that it doesn't represent everyone's belief as the study actually only polled Muslim adults, completely bypassing the younger generation. You cant put a survey (especially one done by the daily mail ) above criticism by saying "that is how samples work"
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jellevossen)
    Well I would say that it doesn't represent everyone's belief as the study actually only polled Muslim adults, completely bypassing the younger generation. You cant put a survey (especially one done by the daily mail ) above criticism by saying "that is how samples work"
    The survey wasn't carried out by the Daily Fail though. Believe me, I'd take it with more than a pinch of salt if it had been.

    Ofcourse the survey isn't above criticism, but the way it has been conducted would suggest it's reliable and accurate.

    Well, hopefully the younger generation do not carry the same views as their parents, though I fear that' s a faint hope frankly.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.