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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    legal assurance of free speech, freedom of religion and so on.
    This can't happen in any country or community where sharia raises its ugly head.

    Look up the Cairo Declaration of human rights

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_...ights_in_Islam
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Not commenting on the 'fertility war' business, but nothing is stopping men from taking more responsibility raising their kids (and doing so will probably significantly raise the birth rate)
    If a woman has six or seven children it doesn't much matter how much outside help she has, childbearing alone is going to take many years, and then what is more practical, a woman starting a career in her late 20s or early 30s having spent more or less the whole 20s carrying children, or the man continuing the career he has spent his 20s building up?

    Traditional sex roles became traditional for a reason - they are the only roles compatible with families large enough for the population to reproduce given high childhood mortality. We no longer have high childhood mortality and more civilised peoples have taken this as an opportunity to cut down the proportion of life - especially womens' lives - dedicated to bearing children. Less civilised people have used this as an opportunity to radically increase their population growth rate.

    There are many women who have managed to have large families, with careers. E.g. the German Defence Minister has 7 children, and is favoured to succeed Merkel, so could one day be the most powerful woman on the planet.
    The German defence minister is an aristocrat.

    Nonetheless, a world in which most people have 7 children and they all survive to adulthood is quickly going to lack elbow room. It's not a desirable long run solution, even if something like it is probably a necessary short term expedient.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Intolerance needs to be countered with intolerance not excuses.
    You do realise that, snappy as that sounds, it just the most awful attitude, right?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    This can't happen in any country or community where sharia raises its ugly head.

    Look up the Cairo Declaration of human rights

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_...ights_in_Islam

    I know of the Cairo declaration of Islamic supremacism.

    A Muslim mainorigy however is not going to enact legal shariah in Britain (thank the Lord)
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Observatory)
    If a woman has six or seven children it doesn't much matter how much outside help she has, childbearing alone is going to take many years, and then what is more practical, a woman starting a career in her late 20s or early 30s having spent more or less the whole 20s carrying children, or the man continuing the career he has spent his 20s building up?
    You are assuming that the man has a better career than his wife. That is increasingly not the case

    Traditional sex roles became traditional for a reason - they are the only roles compatible with families large enough for the population to reproduce given high childhood mortality. We no longer have high childhood mortality
    As you point out, things have changed, so relying on traditional sex roles is not necessarily a good idea.

    The German defence minister is an aristocrat.
    Okay...

    Nonetheless, a world in which most people have 7 children and they all survive to adulthood is quickly going to lack elbow room. It's not a desirable long run solution, even if something like it is probably a necessary short term expedient.
    Most people don't need to have 7 children. We're far below replacement birth rate as it is, so we can safely have a reasonably large proportion of the population having more children, just to reach replacement rates.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    Shouldn't we be better than that. I mean other Muslims have and still do similar things is a pretty weak reason. These are a people undergoing years of oppression of some of the most extreme kind. I have my issues with Islam (and for the most part the prosecution faced by Rohingya people is more extreme than that faced by non Muslims under Islamic rule) but that's largely irrelevant. Religious/ethnic prosecution is wrong the Rohingya deserve better, they are owed better.
    To be honest, they were orgininally from Bangladesh, so the best thing for them is to move to Bangladesh
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    You do realise that, snappy as that sounds, it just the most awful attitude, right?
    No it's not.

    Do we tolerate racisum?

    Do we tolerate homophobia?

    We should not tolerate the intolerable it really is that simple
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    You are assuming that the man has a better career than his wife. That is increasingly not the case
    It is very likely to be the case if a woman spends 7-10 years pregnant or convalescing from pregnancy. It is not necessarily the case in a society where people have 1-2 children in their mid 30s.

    As you point out, things have changed, so relying on traditional sex roles is not necessarily a good idea.
    Yes, and one thing that has changed to make this possible is that people no longer have half a dozen or more children; indeed no longer have enough children to even replace the population.

    Most people don't need to have 7 children. We're far below replacement birth rate as it is, so we can safely have a reasonably large proportion of the population having more children, just to reach replacement rates.
    Yes we can - if we roll back feminism. But we seem to be choosing to ramp up feminism instead. Moreover people who support immigration and tolerating non-Western lifestyles mostly also support feminism. If one of them has to go, which? Their position is basically incoherent.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redflag99)
    To be honest, they were orgininally from Bangladesh, so the best thing for them is to move to Bangladesh
    Bangladesh doesn't want them back because of their behaviour.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    I know of the Cairo declaration of Islamic supremacism.

    A Muslim mainorigy however is not going to enact legal shariah in Britain (thank the Lord)
    Not legally no but doesn't stop them from doing this illegally as we have seen.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    You do realise that, snappy as that sounds, it just the most awful attitude, right?
    Are you making a case that racism should be tolerated?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Are you making a case that racism should be tolerated?
    No, of course not. But seldom has the attitude encompassed in that little soundbite ever achieved anything. To toss it around like the solution to a complicated and entrenched conflict it at best naive and at worst dangerous.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    No, of course not. But seldom has the attitude encompassed in that little soundbite ever achieved anything. To toss it around like the solution to a complicated and entrenched conflict it at best naive and at worst dangerous.
    Perhaps you can explain the sorts of intolerant behaviour we should be happy to accept then?

    Would you be happy to accept vigilante attacks on those that offend people with religious views?

    Are you happy for people to patrol their local neighbourhoods, enforcing the behavioural rules of the locals on visitors and passers-by?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    This sentiment is very common but suffers from being utterly thoughtless, and trite. Do you not know the meaning of the word "discriminate"?

    I (justifiably and reasonably) discriminate against people who threaten me, or who are violent, or who rob me, or who are dishonest. I actively seek to avoid them at all times. I also discriminate against people who live in the west but who refuse to be assimilated into our society. Such people should live elsewhere.

    If seeking to employ someone, I actively discriminate against anyone I suspect is incapable of performing the job well.
    A person's being Muslim is not valid grounds for any of those sorts of discrimination.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    A person's being Muslim is not valid grounds for any of those sorts of discrimination.
    As I thought I made clear, I discriminate against people who exhibit particular behaviours (or who advocate them), not those with particular labels.

    There are ghettoes of unassimilated Jews as well as Moslems in Britain, and even Hindus. It is the behaviour that is the problem, not the particular superstitious belief that may or may not drive it.

    This is demonstrated by plenty of Moslems who are assimilated, having cast aside the grosser aspects of their indoctrinated beliefs and made the sensible decision that superstition is not a sensible way forward in twenty-first century Europe.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    working link

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...u-kyis-myanmar

    “No Muslims allowed to stay overnight. No Muslims allowed to rent houses. No marriage with Muslims.”

    I see similar laws in Muslim countries and within the Muslim faith so can't see an issue with this I suspect the outrage will be some Muslims complaining they are being treated the same as they would treat others.

    But this is the problem with Islamic immigration there is no compromise with the host country so tensions always arise (as we see in every country with a new Muslim community)
    Muslim's have been in Burma, for generations, I can relate because I have Burmese Muslim friends* lol chat **** get banged mate
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    No, of course not. But seldom has the attitude encompassed in that little soundbite ever achieved anything. To toss it around like the solution to a complicated and entrenched conflict it at best naive and at worst dangerous.
    apart from fighting racism and homophobia to name a few examples
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adzkii786)
    Muslim's have been in Burma, for generations, I can relate because I have Burmese Muslim friends* lol chat **** get banged mate
    and in English?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adzkii786)
    Muslim's have been in Burma, for generations, I can relate because I have Burmese Muslim friends* lol chat **** get banged mate
    but as I said those who will complain the loudest will be fellow Muslims who are worried they might be treated as badly as Muslim countries treat their minorities.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    X!
    If the accounts that you reported are accurate, then I can completely agree you that this was barbaric and wrong. It goes against all Orthodox Islamic principles and I can sympathise with how the Buddhists must have felt and their justification for their actions.Now, I also understand where they are coming from in terms of their new laws, doesn't mean its ethically right to discriminate against a group from the actions of a few. It's also interesting to see they current tension between Buddhists and Hindus from this current conflict as seen above. It's hard to tell without knowing both sides of the story but if the report you mentioned was true, it's definitely attributed to the Muslims who catalysed this conflict, and in this case the Muslims are to blame. As a Muslim, I know clearly that if the report you mentioned is accurate (source?) the Muslims are in the error. We are not always the victim, but what you mentioned in terms of atrocities breaks many many rules in Islam.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 28, 2016
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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.