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

Muslim family kicked off plane in London after passenger complains watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    Well, it is a rather scary religion, to be fair.

    I don't hate Muslims though, the ideology itself disgusts me - yet that still makes me an Islamophobe by your definition encompasses both the religion AND the people.

    Your definition prevents any criticism of Islam.

    I still hate Islam and will continue to hate it.
    Freedom of criticism does not give you freedom of hatred and bigotry.

    Too often do you people wave your shield of "oh but I can criticise Islam" to justify hating and fearing ordinary Muslims.
    You can pretend that you don't hate Muslims, but you hate their religion and almost every aspect of their lives, so you are hating on Muslims simultaneously to an extent.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Freedom of criticism does not give you freedom of hatred and bigotry.

    Too often do you people wave your shield of "oh but I can criticise Islam" to justify hating and fearing ordinary Muslims.
    You can pretend that you don't hate Muslims, but you hate their religion and almost every aspect of their lives, so you are hating on Muslims simultaneously to an extent.

    I don't hate or fear individual Muslims... well at least not the radicals and jihadists.

    I hate every single aspect of the religion, though.


    Hating Islam doesn't mean I hate Muslims... :facepalm:

    I thoroughly dislike all religions, but I don't have those who follow it (for the most part).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    I don't hate or fear individual Muslims... well at least not the radicals and jihadists.

    I hate every single aspect of the religion, though.


    Hating Islam doesn't mean I hate Muslims... :facepalm:

    I thoroughly dislike all religions, but I don't have those who follow it (for the most part).
    I'm still waiting for your source on 15% of all Muslims being extrmists

    And you can pretend to be in the right all you like, but hating someone's culture implicitly has negative predispositions associated with them
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    I'm still waiting for your source on 15% of all Muslims being extrmists

    And you can pretend to be in the right all you like, but hating someone's culture implicitly has negative predispositions associated with them
    I don't think you ever asked for it.

    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    I have an alternative interpretation.

    The reason the west is the most advanced set of societies is because we live in the most fertile, most interconnected, most productive lands. With the industrial revolution, our industry picked up massively, sciences such as chemistry and physics improved massively, people started getting paid more money, people could get jobs more easily, we abandoned our traditional ways of society and improvised on capitalist democracy, and it worked out.

    The reason that the Middle East still has religious governments and stuff is because its a desert, with poor land for development, poor farming capacity. Furthermore it has suffered brutal warlords and regimes throughout history, and it still is now. In a land where you are at constant threat from invading barbarians, just as the Middle Easterners were, and where your life depends on you making a living for yourself and surviving in harsh conditions, and where the economy and industry have lesser capacity to skyrocket - of course more extremist religions are going to start appearing. Of course they will be integrated with politics, a religion which justifies killing any foreign threat is perfectly understandable in the harsh wasteland of the ME back 1500 years ago.

    But that was long ago. The world has changed, and so have almost all Muslims. So blaming a backwards culture or a barbaric faith is unwarranted when there are some fairly obvious reasons as to why they existed.

    When you have the capacity to cherry-pick what to follow, and what not to follow in a religion - the fault is with the extremists who exploit this, and not the religion, whose community has evidently adapted.
    Geography is definetely an important factor in development. I think there was a specific term for that, but I cant come up with it.

    Im always very careful when it comes to relativism though. Cultural and religious relativism are very dangerous in the sense that they encourage people to think "all religions are equally bad" and "all culturles are equal, just different". This is clearly not the case. This puts cultures that fight for equal rights on the same pedestal as cultures that kill non-believers, which is absolutely insane.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    Nope, it is a valid comparison because history is somewhat repeating itself
    **** me! UK Muslims comparing themselves the Jews in Nazi Germany!
    It would be funny if it wasn't so ****ing disgusting.
    Don't you get embarrassed when you say things like that?

    whereby one religious group is being demonised by the public, the media and the government,
    Utterly false. Broadsheet media, main broadcasters, academics and the government are tripping over themselves to absolve Islam of any responsibility for Islamist extremism.

    And when you say "demonised", you actually mean "exposed to examination and criticism".

    and increasingly being targeted by laws and programs.
    Like what?

    The obvious difference between my views and the UK is that it claims to be an open, secular and free society whereby no one individual group should be targeted and singled out,
    That is not what "open, secular and free" means. It actually means that everyone and everything is open to criticism and censure. You cannot claim exemption because you think you're different or special.

    I have explained to you numerous times that claiming something is 'sectarianism' doesn't actually mean anything. You need to define: what actually constitutes sectarianism?
    Sectarianism is a fact of life. Where you have different opinions, there will be disagreement. In and of itself, it is not damaging. What is, is the violence resulting from absolute refusal to even accept the others right to even hold their view, and that holding such a view renders one liable to punishment. As we see so often with religious sectarianism, especially Sunni/Shia issue - the strength of which you so ably demonstrated on ISOC recently.

    You keep spouting that word to try to silence people or make them appear bigoted, but an academic critical appraisal of someone's beliefs does not constitute bigotry
    So, you are claiming that the Sunni attitude towards Shia and Ahmadiyya is "academic critical appraisal"?
    Do you even believe the nonsense you are writing here?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    I don't think you ever asked for it.

    Ah yes, the famous Ben Shapiro nonsense.

    That has been refuted by another news agency.

    One of the main points that was pointed out was that he seems to think that anyone who believes in Sharia Law is radical - despite the fact that it is interpreted and used differently depending on the place, and that Sharia Law is not a fixed set of laws which legitimise barbaric acts.

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...-are-radicals/

    Shapiro said that a majority of Muslims are radicals. To make his numbers work, he had to cherry-pick certain results from public opinion surveys. Given the choice between two possible percentages, he chose the higher one. Shapiro also relied heavily on the idea that anyone who supported sharia law is a radical.Some of the best polling work shows that Muslim beliefs are much more nuanced. Some countries where high percentages of Muslims support Sharia law show low support for suicide attacks on civilians. Large fractions of Muslims that endorse sharia law do not want it imposed on others. The meaning of Sharia law varies from sect to sect and nation to nation.Shapiro’s definition of radical is so thin as to be practically meaningless and so too are the numbers he brings to bear.

    We rate the claim False.


    What's your next far-right news agency you want to reference?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    **** me! UK Muslims comparing themselves the Jews in Nazi Germany!
    It would be funny if it wasn't so ****ing disgusting.
    Don't you get embarrassed when you say things like that?
    The Nazi analogy is a little simplistic, but the fundamental principle still applies.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nosler)
    Muslim family get kicked off plane = Protest by Muslims (and associated well meaning posters) about how unfair and racist the West is.

    Multiple terrorist attacks committed by Islamists = Silence from mainstream Muslims. Multiple articles in the Guardian about how the West deserves it.
    I have noticed this.
    There is always a far more vocal response to a Muslim being asked some questions by a non-Muslim than there is to non-Muslims being violently killed by a Muslim.
    I wonder why that is?
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Islamophobia covers fear of Muslims or Islam

    a fear of Muslims is completely unjustified and discriminatory, a fear of Islam is somewhat acceptable
    So you now think that Islamophobia is "somewhat acceptable". Excellent

    most people who actually fear Islam haven't even been to high percentage (ie 95%+) communities
    You do not need ever to have met a Muslim to understand that Islamic ideology contains much that is unacceptable, you only need to have read the Quran and sunnah. Anyone who values liberty, democracy, equality, etc, would rightly fear living under a system based purely on the contents of the Quran and sunnah.

    in remote parts of the world like India, Indonesia, etc, they do not run out with meat cleavers and try to behead non-believers on sight, lol
    Ah yes, your cute little "I met some Muslims and they didn't kill me, therefore there is no violence in Islam" story.
    Tres cool bro.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    I'd be more annoyed if the police didn't investigate such claims.*
    So you disagree with slander laws?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    It's no different than this, but because the people were Muslim there's a huge uproar on TSR... :curious:

    This suggests that either people have this victimhood complex surrounding anything Islamic, or that the average IQ and/or levels of common sense among students is dropping. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Are you out of your mind?

    I am sure you will see if you looked at my post history that I have absolutely no love lost for Islam, but when another passenger for no reason other than hate accuses people of something and the people in charge listen, you say some bs about turning off electronic devices?

    That is absolutely ridiculous mate
    Ah but you see, intolerance and bigotry is acceptable when we do it. Obviously, the authorities are not killing Muslims, therefore obviously the statistically negligible chance of being a victim in a terrorist incident in a plane warrants irrational profiling and those pesky little Arab Muslims should shut the **** up and accept it! The world is full of mean people, so they should get used to it instead of challenging bigotry. Did I mention bigotry is acceptable when we do it?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    I don't think you ever asked for it.

    An orthodox Jew former Breitbart editor.

    Yes, that guy must be right.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    It's no different than this,
    That's funny ...

    ... and sad, considering I quite like differential equations
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    It's sad when people allow themselves to be ruled by irrational fear.
    Governments are always telling people to be vigilante. You would be frothing at the mouth if your loved ones were massacrred in a terrorist attack and numerous people had not reported suspicious or circumstantial ongoings to police because they thought it was irrational
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Group Staff
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    Governments are always telling people to be vigilante. You would be frothing at the mouth if your loved ones were massacrred in a terrorist attack and numerous people had not reported suspicious or circumstantial ongoings to police because they thought it was irrational
    First off, don't presume to tell me how I would feel.

    Second, vigilance is one thing (as a note, vigilante is quite another, but I'm guessing you meant vigilant), but that doesn't excuse paranoia. The passenger overreacted out of irrational fear, plain and simple.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    I have an alternative interpretation.

    The reason the west is the most advanced set of societies is because we live in the most fertile, most interconnected, most productive lands. With the industrial revolution, our industry picked up massively, sciences such as chemistry and physics improved massively, people started getting paid more money, people could get jobs more easily, we abandoned our traditional ways of society and improvised on capitalist democracy, and it worked out.

    The reason that the Middle East still has religious governments and stuff is because its a desert, with poor land for development, poor farming capacity. Furthermore it has suffered brutal warlords and regimes throughout history, and it still is now. In a land where you are at constant threat from invading barbarians, just as the Middle Easterners were, and where your life depends on you making a living for yourself and surviving in harsh conditions, and where the economy and industry have lesser capacity to skyrocket - of course more extremist religions are going to start appearing. Of course they will be integrated with politics, a religion which justifies killing any foreign threat is perfectly understandable in the harsh wasteland of the ME back 1500 years ago.

    But that was long ago. The world has changed, and so have almost all Muslims. So blaming a backwards culture or a barbaric faith is unwarranted when there are some fairly obvious reasons as to why they existed.

    When you have the capacity to cherry-pick what to follow, and what not to follow in a religion - the fault is with the extremists who exploit this, and not the religion, whose community has evidently adapted.
    You have made a lot of points that beg a lot of questions. While I agree that environment and derived wealth can have an effect on development, you seem to be ignoring the fact that some of the most ideologically backward and superstitious of the Middle East countries are those with the most wealth.

    How exactly does believing in the Islamic superstitions help you to live in a desert country?

    Why do they (including the educated and wealthy rulers) stick to these old superstitions?

    Why do they ignore what science (and its origin is irrelevant, it is still accessible to them) tells them and continue to believe in arrant nonsense?

    When you say almost all Moslems have changed, which ones do you mean? It seems to me that most Moslems haven't changed. We daily see Moslems and Islamic countries persecuting people for having a different take on superstition - they are still buried in the seventh century. Pakistanis won't even allow law changes to help women because it would be unislamic.

    Why do you ignore the point that Islam itself - the supposed word of Allah - tells Moslems they cannot cherry-pick and must follow Islam in its entirety, strongly encouraging them to remain in their seventh century hellhole of superstitious belief?

    You refer to bad conditions being the only reason people stick with their beliefs, yet ignore the fact (as proved by educated posters here on TSR) that Moslems who move to the west very often continue to believe, live by and bring up their children by these nonsensical superstitions. And they then complain of being disadvantaged!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You have made a lot of points that beg a lot of questions. While I agree that environment and derived wealth can have an effect on development, you seem to be ignoring the fact that some of the most ideologically backward and superstitious of the Middle East countries are those with the most wealth.

    How exactly does believing in the Islamic superstitions help you to live in a desert country?

    Why do they (including the educated and wealthy rulers) stick to these old superstitions?

    Why do they ignore what science (and its origin is irrelevant, it is still accessible to them) tells them and continue to believe in arrant nonsense?

    When you say almost all Moslems have changed, which ones do you mean? It seems to me that most Moslems haven't changed. We daily see Moslems and Islamic countries persecuting people for having a different take on superstition - they are still buried in the seventh century. Pakistanis won't even allow law changes to help women because it would be unislamic.

    Why do you ignore the point that Islam itself - the supposed word of Allah - tells Moslems they cannot cherry-pick and must follow Islam in its entirety, strongly encouraging them to remain in their seventh century hellhole of superstitious belief?

    You refer to bad conditions being the only reason people stick with their beliefs, yet ignore the fact (as proved by educated posters here on TSR) that Moslems who move to the west very often continue to believe, live by and bring up their children by these nonsensical superstitions. And they then complain of being disadvantaged!
    Islam readily commands fighting against non-believers. In a deprived society, the government is more fragile due to worse economics, worse production, etc. So developing a no-tolerance stance for non-believers helps promote the ideology of the government, and given that Islam and Islamic governments are so readily intertwined, it helps preserve the government and its rulers.

    The governments in the Middle East stick to some of these beliefs because its a part of their culture and heritage. There are other ways of life to democracy, they aren't going to readily accept a western style of government, which has some criticisms of its own. Imagine if Saudi Arabia tried to propose democracy or another alien type of government on its people, that would be a disastrous move for any government - regardless of whether or not democracy is viewed as fairer or less bigoted - because its goes against the culture and government that the entire population has lived by and been taught to appreciate for their entire lives and for many generations. There are also a few cases where Islamic beliefs are used by governments to justify political opposition, which comes under corruption - but I would link the corruption back to failed western foreign policy and being in a deprived region. A government in a desolate desert is probably more likely to be corrupt than a government in a thriving land such as the UK or France.

    They ignore science for the same reasons. I doubt an atheist, scientific person running for a Middle Eastern government would come across as popular to countries of almost 100% Muslim population. Its not a matter of simply switching to a more compatible government, when you have an entire population who may view that as unwarranted.

    By Muslims changing, I mean that 1.6 billion of them evidently don't readily behead non-believers or follow the violence in the Quran. Most of them acknowledge the violent parts and ignore it, but this isn't unconditional, there are many groups which don't. But the fact that Islam is 1500 years old and society has changed so dramatically means that Muslims won't follow it without question as if they're brainwashed.

    The same criticism about it being the word of God can apply to Christianity. In a modern world, in the 21st century, we do not have very many people who follow their faiths to an absolute extent. Instead, they integrate it with our own society and follow both at the same time. Most religions are ancient, so there isn't going to be an unconditional, instantaneous following of what it says from anyone. They all know that their religions were designed long ago for different types of society. Its only groups like ISIS and Boko Haram who want to restore the pre-medieval practices.

    And obviously following Islam isn't a binary decision, given that it is so old. You will have different extents to which some Muslims follow Islam.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    First off, don't presume to tell me how I would feel.

    Second, vigilance is one thing (as a note, vigilante is quite another, but I'm guessing you meant vigilant), but that doesn't excuse paranoia. The passenger overreacted out of irrational fear, plain and simple.
    Ok swap you for random person. On average the random person would be livid.

    Yes Vigilant, not vigilante .. paranoia happens, its not a conscious choice

    Not read the article and i imagine you are right, some people are extemely ignorant and will report all sorts of benign stuff but that doesnt mean the reaction should be to condemn people and mock people for reporting stuff they thought was important in good faith
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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

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