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

Ehhh... I'm kinda with the anti-Trump brigade on this one watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Fundamentalist Christians are not a particularly great threat to Western society. They don't murder people who mock their religion.
    No, they just shoot up abortion clinics and sexually assault young children.


    I don't think all Muslims should be banned. Banning people from a country isn't punishment, as allowing people in is a privilege.
    Ridiculous logic. Allowing people of every religion to enter a country but one is punishment. Banning people who've done nothing wrong but simply belong to a certain religion or background is fascism.


    No I don't. I just criticise the majority of Muslims who think homosexuality should be illegal and think Sharia should be the rule of the land. I am aware that those people should be allowed to believe whatever they want, but that doesn't change the fact that I dislike them and will continue to criticise them.


    Perhaps we should criticise the people who support killing people in abortion clinics, though.
    Do the majority think that? What does it matter what they think? We shouldn't have a thought police and people should only be responsible and punishable for their actions, not their thoughts.

    People are allowed to oppose gay marriage, that's up to them. As long as they don't prevent others exercising this right then I don't care what they think. Your opinions are your own, your actions affect others and that's what matters.

    It's fine to criticise Islam, it's not fine to propose punishing ordinary, innocent Muslims for the actions of terrorists.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Why do you assume that I don't dislike fundamentalist Christians as well?
    So you dislike Muslims in general but only dislike Christian fundamentalists?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    No, they just shoot up abortion clinics and sexually assault young children.
    Which should all be criticised, and any Christian who is OK with that should criticised too. Very few are though, while surveys show that 52% of Muslims in the UK think that homosexuality should be illegal https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ity-sharia-law. When taking into account the proportional sizes of their demographics in the UK, Muslims create far more problems than Christians in terms of grooming gangs, sex assaults, homophobic hate spiel, antisemitism, and violent and murderous acts committed in the name of their religion.



    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Ridiculous logic. Allowing people of every religion to enter a country but one is punishment. Banning people who've done nothing wrong but simply belong to a certain religion or background is fascism.
    It isn't fascism. It has nothing to do with the definition of fascism. But I don't care about this anyway because it would be impossible to ban all Muslims and I don't agree with it anyway.



    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Do the majority think that? What does it matter what they think? We shouldn't have a thought police and people should only be responsible and punishable for their actions, not their thoughts.
    People are responsible for believing in the ideas that they believe in, and the idea that they aren't is absurd. Every idea is up for debate, every idea can be criticised. And if I dislike an idea, I will criticise it. It has nothing to do with thought policing. I don't want to get the punitive system involved.


    (Original post by Bornblue)
    People are allowed to oppose gay marriage, that's up to them. As long as they don't prevent others exercising this right then I don't care what they think. Your opinions are your own, your actions affect others and that's what matters.
    People are allowed to want gay people jailed, and I am allowed to dislike them for wanting it.


    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It's fine to criticise Islam, it's not fine to propose punishing ordinary, innocent Muslims for the actions of terrorists.
    It is fine to criticise Muslims for believing in things which I dislike, though. That's how free speech works.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    So you dislike Muslims in general but only dislike Christian fundamentalists?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No, I only dislike Muslim and Christian fundamentalists. However, a majority of Muslims are fundamentalists.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Themini)
    I may be ignorant here. But doesn't trump want to make torture legal and also make it legal for families of terror suspects to be killed?
    I'm sorry to interrupt, but isn't the burden of proof on you [to prove and to source]?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    No, I only dislike Muslim and Christian fundamentalists. However, a majority of Muslims are fundamentalists.
    And you know that how?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Yeah of course, I'm sure lots of incompetent businessmen have a net worth of $4.5bn



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Nice try, but firstly it wouldn't be the first time he has over-inflated his personal finances (the value seems to go down with each passing bout of scrutiny), he is a bit of a con artist that way, he is about image after all, trying to convince people he is greater than he is, financially and otherwise.

    Secondly his very well documented string of bankruptcies and the fact that pretty much all the profitable Trump-branded business are run by people other than him, which he doesn't even own says a lot.

    He is a brand name, a logo, a figurehead. His real talents as far as you can call them that, is in PR. He plays the role of "rich man", who flaunts wealth (whether he actually tangibly has that wealth is something else), an actor who puts on a play to investors, and which keeps his brand-name (and the owners/investors behind it) current.


    I'll give it to him though, once and if he's done with a presidency, that's almost a license to print an income, so good on him, but basically he is no leader or competent manager. He's also very divisive.

    Great presidential candidate there.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    Nice try, but firstly it wouldn't be the first time he has over-inflated his personal finances (the value seems to go down with each passing bout of scrutiny), he is a bit of a con artist that way, he is about image after all, trying to convince people he is greater than he is, financially and otherwise.

    Secondly his very well documented string of bankruptcies and the fact that pretty much all the profitable Trump-branded business are run by people other than him, which he doesn't even own says a lot.

    He is a brand name, a logo, a figurehead. His real talents as far as you can call them that, is in PR. He plays the role of "rich man", who flaunts wealth (whether he actually tangibly has that wealth is something else), an actor who puts on a play to investors, and which keeps his brand-name (and the owners/investors behind it) current.


    I'll give it to him though, once and if he's done with a presidency, that's almost a license to print an income, so good on him, but basically he is no leader or competent manager. He's also very divisive.

    Great presidential candidate there.
    That figure isn't from Trump, he claims to be worth $10bn. The figure of $4.5bn is from Forbes. You're massively underplaying what he's achieved. Even if he no longer runs his businesses day to day he is still the person who built them and had created a big enough business empire that allowed brand Trump to emerge. In my opinion the bankruptcies actually go in his favour; everyone makes mistakes and he clearly learnt from his and went back to being a billionaire

    I'm not going to say he's right for the presidency but when it comes to making money he clearly knows what he's doing.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I'm sorry but if you have time to make comment after comment on here then you have time to answer my earlier question.

    What should the left's response to Islamic terrorism be and how will this prevent Islamic terrorism and quell the rise of the far right?
    I'm not looking to trip you up, genuinely. I just want to know what your solution is.
    If we move closer to the far right, they become less extreme, not more.

    No one is saying there isn't an issue, but to propose banning all Muslims because they share a characteristic of a few terrorists really is fascistic.

    Your Airport security example is flawed as EVERYONE is checked, not just one race, religion or gender and that's not even a punishment as all innocent people are allowed through.
    1) Deport extremist hate preachers
    2) Deport foriegn born criminals
    3) Deportation of convicted terrorist upon release from jail
    4) Much stronger prison sentences for convicted terrorist offences
    5) Strong Surveilance of all mosques
    6) Stop importing more muslims en masse
    7) Strong curfews and asset freezes on those under investigation
    8) Breaking up and better surveilance of extremist grooming cultivated IN prisons
    9) Strong sentences and repercussions for muslim communities who aid and abet extremists
    10) Much tougher, reality based stance towards normal muslim community. No more pandering and mollycuddling with kid gloves

    These are just 10 things i can loosely think off. Now, i have not thoroughly examined each idea but this is the sort of action needed to crush the extremists

    If you dont like the airport example, how about when a selected group of people are quarantined through fear of spreading a virus etc
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    1) Deport extremist hate preachers
    2) Deport foriegn born criminals
    The vast majority of foreign born criminals aren't terrorists so that doesn't do anything to stop terrorism. A lot of terrorists are born in the country they attack and they usually have never been in trouble with the police before.

    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    3) Deportation of convicted terrorist upon release from jail
    How many terrorists are released from jail? I also don't see how this has much impact. You just send a terrorist somewhere else to attack different people, seems a bit selfish.

    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    4) Much stronger prison sentences for convicted terrorist offences
    What would that achieve? If you believe you're doing gods work I doubt you're worried about jail.

    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    5) Strong Surveilance of all mosques
    Utterly ridiculous and discriminatory

    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    6) Stop importing more muslims en masse
    No ones 'importing' Muslims and most Muslims that emigrate are perfectly normal people. Punish the many for the actions of the few?

    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    7) Strong curfews and asset freezes on those under investigation
    So ruin someone's life for a few months potentially for nothing?

    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    8) Breaking up and better surveilance of extremist grooming cultivated IN prisons
    9) Strong sentences and repercussions for muslim communities who aid and abet extremists
    How do you define who's part of the community? Most people intersect with multiple communities and groups of people.

    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    10) Much tougher, reality based stance towards normal muslim community. No more pandering and mollycuddling with kid gloves
    Why does anything need to be done about ordinary Muslims?

    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    These are just 10 things i can loosely think off. Now, i have not thoroughly examined each idea but this is the sort of action needed to crush the extremists
    What really needs to be done to stop extremists is cut off the supply line. Yes part of that is about trying to take a tougher stance on hate preachers (which we're prevented from doing by the HRA) but the biggest part is stop alienating ordinary Muslims by making them feel like people blame them for the actions of the few idiots.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    And you know that how?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    These magical things known as "statistics". See my thread:

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=4233740
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Regressives love to make the claim that "most" Muslims are moderates, and that 99.99% of Muslims are peaceful. The problem is, they never support these claims with any evidence. It's complete conjecture, which just seems as if it could be reasonable. Surely everyone in the world is just like us, right?Here is real evidence:These are polls conducted by Pew Research Center.

    For more information see here:

    http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/0...ull-report.pdf

    http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/t...-about-sharia/

    For information on Pew, see here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pew_Research_Center

    Do Muslims in the UK have more liberal views? According to this next poll, no. 52% of Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ity-sharia-law

    And according to this last poll, it seems almost all British Muslims think homosexuality is morally wrong, as not a single one questioned thought it was morally acceptable: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/...-homosexuality
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Which should all be criticised, and any Christian who is OK with that should criticised too. Very few are though, while surveys show that 52% of Muslims in the UK think that homosexuality should be illegal https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ity-sharia-law. When taking into account the proportional sizes of their demographics in the UK, Muslims create far more problems than Christians in terms of grooming gangs, sex assaults, homophobic hate spiel, antisemitism, and violent and murderous acts committed in the name of their religion.





    It isn't fascism. It has nothing to do with the definition of fascism. But I don't care about this anyway because it would be impossible to ban all Muslims and I don't agree with it anyway.





    People are responsible for believing in the ideas that they believe in, and the idea that they aren't is absurd. Every idea is up for debate, every idea can be criticised. And if I dislike an idea, I will criticise it. It has nothing to do with thought policing. I don't want to get the punitive system involved.




    People are allowed to want gay people jailed, and I am allowed to dislike them for wanting it.




    It is fine to criticise Muslims for believing in things which I dislike, though. That's how free speech works.
    You seem to have a rather strange, unwavering belief and trust in polls to the extent that you never question their reliability, validity or indeed methodology.

    The poll stating that 52% of Muslims opposed homosexuality was a survey of just 1000 Muslims. Do you know how they made sure that these 1000 Muslims were representative of all Muslims in the country? Answer is they did not.
    They largely chose Muslims from poorer, more conservative areas of majority Muslims, which only accounts for 50% of our Muslim population. Have a read of this: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9666, It explains it well here.


    But let's for a minute take this poll at face value and assume it's correct. You do realise 175 of our MPs voted against gay marriage, are they fundamentalists? In Northern Ireland both gay marriage and abortion are banned, are they fundamentalists?

    In the 70s here it was illegal to be homosexual and you could be sent to prison for it, were we all fundamentalist then? In the 80s Thatcher banned the teaching of homosexuality in schools, were we all fundamentalist then? Or is it only fundamentalist when Muslims do it?


    Over time, attitudes have become more liberal towards homosexuality from all sides. It takes time and as Muslims become more assimilated, their attitudes have and will continue to accept homosexuality even if they do not agree with it.


    Yet time and time and time again, you hold ordinary and innocent Muslims to a standard that you hold no one else. All i'm asking for is consistency.

    You seem to want to blame and punish ordinary Muslims for the actions of terrorists, simply because they share a characteristic and that is fascism.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)

    1) Deport extremist hate preachers
    Two problems with this. Firstly what if they are British? We can't simply deport our own people. Secondly if we deport Islamic hate preachers then surely you'd approve deporting far right hate preachers?


    2) Deport foriegn born criminals
    If the crimes are bad enough, we do. Just as we did with Abu Qhatada and in the process we made sure that Jordan would not use evidence obtained by torture which was a real victory for human rights.


    3) Deportation of convicted terrorist upon release from jail
    If the terrorist is British we cannot deport them, if they are foreign we do.

    4) Much stronger prison sentences for convicted terrorist offences
    Please tell me, in particular which sentences are too light?

    5) Strong Surveilance of all mosques
    Ridiculous idea. Exactly the type which is likely to make ordinary young Muslims feel even more isolated, alienated and distrusted, making them far more likely to turn to extremism, the very issue you are trying to prevent.

    Freedom of religion and freedom of prayer are fundamental human rights, ordinary people of just one faith should not be under surveillance when they have done nothing wrong.

    6) Stop importing more muslims en masse
    We don't import Muslims en masse. And why? We can't discriminate against just one group of people.

    7) Strong curfews and asset freezes on those under investigation
    How about innocent until proven guilty? Or do basic human rights not count?

    8) Breaking up and better surveilance of extremist grooming cultivated IN prisons
    I agree.

    9) Strong sentences and repercussions for muslim communities who aid and abet extremists
    Which Muslim communities do this? Please give specific examples.

    10) Much tougher, reality based stance towards normal muslim community. No more pandering and mollycuddling with kid gloves
    Why should people who've done nothing wrong be punished and blamed for the actions of the guilty?


    If you dont like the airport example, how about when a selected group of people are quarantined through fear of spreading a virus etc
    Again, flawed example, because it's not based on religion/ethnicity/background. It's based on a very specific threat you may pose through no fault or choice of your own.


    The airport example is again totally flawed because that a.) applies to everyone and b.) doesn't prevent any innocent people travelling.

    Proposing to ban all Muslims because of the actions of a few extremists specifically targets people and prevents them from travelling on the basis of their religion/ethnicity/culture when they have done NOTHING wrong.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The greatest thing Trump has done is convincing so many people he is even slightly 'anti-establishment'. A corporate billionaire who has thrived from our economic system hardly strikes you as anti-establishment.
    "Billionaire"..... well, I don't know about that. Plus he's a moron who doesn't understand politics at all.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Two problems with this. Firstly what if they are British? We can't simply deport our own people. Secondly if we deport Islamic hate preachers then surely you'd approve deporting far right hate preachers?
    The government makes their life miserable. Banning orders from busy community places, restrictions in where they can and cant go and so on. Isolate them from the muslim community who they are targeting. They break the rules they get a very punitive prison sentence.



    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If the crimes are bad enough, we do. Just as we did with Abu Qhatada and in the process we made sure that Jordan would not use evidence obtained by torture which was a real victory for human rights.
    No - He was first convicted in 2002 and was only deported in 2013 after BS courts said we could not kick him out because he may be tortured. He was only deported because we reached a deal with Jordan not to torture him. Its utter BS and exactly one of the issues the far right will address.



    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Please tell me, in particular which sentences are too light?
    The whole British justice system is in general two lenient, its particularly bad having convicted extremists spending short stints in their and coming out even more extreme and angry


    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Ridiculous idea. Exactly the type which is likely to make ordinary young Muslims feel even more isolated, alienated and distrusted, making them far more likely to turn to extremism, the very issue you are trying to prevent.
    Riightt, religion of peace members might go Jihad if you dont bend over for them. Utterly appalling and if you think good nice muslims can be turned into beheading, raping, isis fanatics... because of surveilance of mosques

    Perhaps Muslims could be yano, reasonable smart people like everybody else and support the fight against the extremists they continually harbor in the midst yet tell us they deplore like the rest of us

    then maybe you should reconsider just what a HUGE problem we have (Yano with having millions of muslims)

    How are muslims going to react when fruit loop nutters and far right nazis start firebombing their mosques? Now that will be an interesting test for the religion of peace

    CBA responding to the rest... the proposals arent pretty but neither are 85 year old priests being beheaded nor little children having their bodies crushed beneath a 19 tonne truck for wanting to watch fireworks and celebrate their national day.


    - NOW

    Tell me what YOU propose
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You seem to have a rather strange, unwavering belief and trust in polls to the extent that you never question their reliability, validity or indeed methodology.

    The poll stating that 52% of Muslims opposed homosexuality was a survey of just 1000 Muslims. Do you know how they made sure that these 1000 Muslims were representative of all Muslims in the country? Answer is they did not.
    They largely chose Muslims from poorer, more conservative areas of majority Muslims, which only accounts for 50% of our Muslim population. Have a read of this: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9666, It explains it well here.
    You have no idea that the Muslims in areas where they make up a higher percentage of a community are more conservative, that is an assumption. Although it is wise to be skeptical of the poll, it does not change the fact that it is still evidence. It is evidence that shows that if I were a gay man walking through Tower Hamlets, half of the Muslims I'd see would think I should be imprisoned or at least punished in some way. Whether Muslims have similar opinions in areas where less of them live is unknown. The fact that a community is smaller doesn't necessary mean that it is less tight-nit, and the link below seems to show that closeness with other Muslims may have very little affect. Moreover, your assumption that Muslims will be more conservative if the communities are poorer (as areas with larger communities of Muslims likely are) is based on no evidence. This study shows that Muslims who had less contact with friends and family are frequently more radicalised (therefore completely going against the writer on that site's assumption that those surrounded by more Muslims will be more conservative) and also more financially well-off (therefore going against your idea that poorer Muslims will be more conservative): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...d-9754062.html

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    But let's for a minute take this poll at face value and assume it's correct. You do realise 175 of our MPs voted against gay marriage, are they fundamentalists? In Northern Ireland both gay marriage and abortion are banned, are they fundamentalists?
    Being against legalising gay marriage is vastly less terrible than thinking gays should actually be sent to prison.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    In the 70s here it was illegal to be homosexual and you could be sent to prison for it, were we all fundamentalist then? In the 80s Thatcher banned the teaching of homosexuality in schools, were we all fundamentalist then? Or is it only fundamentalist when Muslims do it?
    Well, first of all, gay sex was decriminalised in the sixties. Secondly, we can expect there was quite wide public pressure or changes in views for that to have happened. Thirdly, it was a different time. I certainly would think negatively of anyone who thinks it should be illegal in the present though, and Muslims in this country live in the very same present.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Over time, attitudes have become more liberal towards homosexuality from all sides. It takes time and as Muslims become more assimilated, their attitudes have and will continue to accept homosexuality even if they do not agree with it.
    There is no evidence to suggest that Muslims are becoming, or will become, more liberal in the UK. In fact, this study shows the opposite: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...e-radical.html

    I realise you will turn your nose up at it due to it being in the Telegraph, but it is still more evidence than you have for your conjecture that Muslims will become more liberal.


    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Yet time and time and time again, you hold ordinary and innocent Muslims to a standard that you hold no one else. All i'm asking for is consistency.
    Actually I just hold Muslims to the same standard as everyone else. That's the difference. I see them as people like me, and I don't give them special privileges or think of them on different terms as if they were another species. Think about how much time and effort you've spent just getting irate at me because I dislike a religion, a set of ideas. Why aren't you spending your energy criticising all those Imams out there who preach that gays should be imprisoned and women should obey their husbands? There are a number of rather fundamentalist Muslims on this site (who often seem to consider themselves moderate, albeit) who I have seen say things like all waitresses are whores, that gays should be hung, that apostates should be killed, and who have praised Erdogan. A Muslim replied to my "How moderate are Muslims thread?" with "It's a shame not enough Muslims want the Sharia". Why aren't you going after those people? I've never seen you respond to them with a single criticism.


    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You seem to want to blame and punish ordinary Muslims for the actions of terrorists, simply because they share a characteristic and that is fascism.
    I don't really care about terrorists. This is just a weird straw-man so there's no need for me to reply.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    The government makes their life miserable. Banning orders from busy community places, restrictions in where they can and cant go and so on. Isolate them from the muslim community who they are targeting. They break the rules they get a very punitive prison sentence.
    I don't see how that will solve either problem. People who join ISIS or carry out acts of terrorism are prepared to die for the cause. So how will imposing tougher sentences deter them if they are already willing to face the toughest sentence?


    No - He was first convicted in 2002 and was only deported in 2013 after BS courts said we could not kick him out because he may be tortured. He was only deported because we reached a deal with Jordan not to torture him. Its utter BS and exactly one of the issues the far right will address.
    I think you should familiarize yourself with the facts of this case because you have made two huge errors.
    (1) Abu Qatada was never convicted in the UK. He was arrested and detained but faced no charges. He was not found guilty of any crime.

    (2) The reason he could not be deported was not because Jordan may torture him but rather that there was a real risk that evidence obtained by him being previously tortured may be used against him in Jordan.

    By us signing that treaty we encouraged Jordan to enforce their human rights obligations. Do you think evidence obtained by torture should be admissible in a court of law? I don't.

    It is also worth noting that when he faced trial in Jordan he was not found guilty. So i'm not sure what your point is here.
    What will the far-right address? Will they allow evidence obtained by torture? Will they deport people who have not been found guilty of any crime?


    The whole British justice system is in general two lenient, its particularly bad having convicted extremists spending short stints in their and coming out even more extreme and angry
    That's far too vague. Give me specific examples to back up your point rather than a generic statement. Which laws are too lenient? Which extremists are having short sentences?


    Riightt, religion of peace members might go Jihad if you dont bend over for them. Utterly appalling and if you think good nice muslims can be turned into beheading, raping, isis fanatics... because of surveilance of mosques

    Perhaps Muslims could be yano, reasonable smart people like everybody else and support the fight against the extremists they continually harbor in the midst yet tell us they deplore like the rest of us

    then maybe you should reconsider just what a HUGE problem we have (Yano with having millions of muslims)

    How are muslims going to react when fruit loop nutters and far right nazis start firebombing their mosques? Now that will be an interesting test for the religion of peace
    If we want to address the problem of Islamic extremism we must look to prevent the conditions which lead to young Muslims being attracted to extremism. People are impressionable. Do you think that every single German who joined or voted for the Nazis was born evil? Of course not, they were ordinary people like anyone else who for some reason or another were lured into extremism.

    One of the major reasons young Muslims join Isis is that they feel isolated, they feel alienated from British society. They feel distrusted and unwelcome. If we pursue policies such as banning all Muslims and blaming all Muslims for the actions of a few, we push ordinary Muslims further away and into the arms of extremists.

    For example look at the way Sadiq Khan, a secular Muslims who has fought extremism, was treated by our press and the Conservative party. He was accused of being an extremist and terrorist sympathiser for simply being a Muslim. Do you think such an approach, of holding all Muslims responsible for the actions of extremists, is conducive to fighting Islamic extremism and the far-right?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    You have no idea that the Muslims in areas where they make up a higher percentage of a community are more conservative, that is an assumption.
    You have no idea that they are just as Conservative. That is also an assumption. What we do know for sure is that the poll was not representative of all Muslims in the UK.
    If polls were as accurate as you seem to think we wouldn't have voted Brexit and Ed Miliband would be PM.


    Being against legalising gay marriage is vastly less terrible than thinking gays should actually be sent to prison.
    Is it? 'We believe in gay rights, but don't think they should be able to get married' - Yeah, real liberal that.


    There is no evidence to suggest that Muslims are becoming, or will become, more liberal in the UK. In fact, this study shows the opposite: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...e-radical.html

    I realise you will turn your nose up at it due to it being in the Telegraph, but it is still more evidence than you have for your conjecture that Muslims will become more liberal.
    It's happened with every other community, why not give it a chance here?


    Actually I just hold Muslims to the same standard as everyone else. That's the difference.
    Except you don't. Whenever there is an attack involving a Muslim you are the first one here, starting about 15 separate anti-Muslim threads. Yet whenever there is a terrorist attack not involving a Muslim you are suspiciously quiet, you refuse to condemn them anywhere near to the extent that you condemn others. Why?

    You regularly bring up passages of the Quaran to show that Islam is sexist/homophobic, and it is. But why do you never do the same for the Bible or Talmud?

    You support measures such as banning all refugees and all Muslims because of the actions of a few terrorists/criminals yet you don't hold the same standards for others.


    I hold Muslims to the same standards as everyone else, you do not.

    But you seem to be missing the very basic point. People can think whatever they want. As long as they do not act on those thoughts there is no problem.
    I personally think a right wing, libertarian economic view is far, far, far more dangerous than a socially conservative attitude as the former leads to huge levels of poverty, which is so often the perfect breeding ground for extremism to flourish.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    These magical things known as "statistics". See my thread:

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=4233740
    This is ridiculous, a large percentage of Americans agree killing is an appropriate punishment for crime yet you wouldn't brand them all dangerous people.

    'Do you think Sharia law should be enforced' - 'yes of course I like the set of laws I've been brought up with'

    The wife obeying husband part is a bit stupid too. Women would have answered and could well have said yes even though their husband may feel differently.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You have no idea that they are just as Conservative. That is also an assumption. What we do know for sure is that the poll was not representative of all Muslims in the UK.
    If polls were as accurate as you seem to think we wouldn't have voted Brexit and Ed Miliband would be PM.
    I did not claim to know that I knew. I made this explicit this when I said "Whether Muslims have similar opinions in areas where less of them live is unknown". I simply posted a survey that seemed to suggest that your assumption could be incorrect. Your response here is both disingenuous and a straw man argument. It's also silly to compare the polls for Brexit and the general election with these surveys, as for both of them the difference between the reality and the surveys was still a matter of a few percent. I'm fairly sure the margin of error that is accounted for in the polls I have shown are a matter of a few percent. If you want to argue over a few percentage points, fine, but the polls still tell us something, and they almost certainly give us at least a vague idea of the opinions of the demographics involved. You on the other hand, have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever for your assumptions and conjectures, so I really don't see how you have a leg to stand on. In fact, the fact that you don't is probably why you are having to resort to being disingenuous and using straw man arguments.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Is it? 'We believe in gay rights, but don't think they should be able to get married' - Yeah, real liberal that.
    Again, another straw man, although this time more subtle, as it seems you're implicitly saying I believe being against gay marriage is "liberal", when I clearly made no indication of thinking anything of the sort. Of course being against gay marriage is illiberal. However, not allowing a couple to get married is very, very less extreme than throwing them in prison.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It's happened with every other community, why not give it a chance here?
    Because there is no evidence to suggest that it is going to happen. Evidence points to the opposite.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Except you don't. Whenever there is an attack involving a Muslim you are the first one here, starting about 15 separate anti-Muslim threads.
    That's a massive exaggeration. Also, terrorist attacks are kinda big news, and this is a News and Current Affairs forum... so I like to discuss big news stories like that.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Yet whenever there is a terrorist attack not involving a Muslim you are suspiciously quiet, you refuse to condemn them anywhere near to the extent that you condemn others. Why?
    Do you have any evidence you can find of me "refusing to comdemn" non-Muslim terrorists? Can you also think of one recent terror attack that has not been perpetrated by a Muslim or someone with a Muslim background?

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You regularly bring up passages of the Quaran to show that Islam is sexist/homophobic, and it is. But why do you never do the same for the Bible or Talmud?
    Because Christianity went through a reformation, and the amount of people who believe that gays and adulterers should be executed are a relatively small chunk of the worldwide Christian population confined to certain sub-Saharan African countries and a few nations in the West Indies. However, as the PEW polls show, a majority of Muslims support Sharia (the very same PEW polls that people use to show that most Muslims do not support terrorism, so please don't give me any stuff about them being biased).


    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You support measures such as banning all refugees and all Muslims because of the actions of a few terrorists/criminals yet you don't hold the same standards for others.
    Another weird straw man. I must have explicitly stated two or three times now that I do not support banning all Muslims. I also don't support banning all refugees, although I would only allow families in, and they would be directly flown in from Syria, which is actually almost exactly what Cameron did and it was one of his most brilliant moves. I do think it's ridiculous that there are women in Cologne, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Frankfurt and Düsseldorf who paid their taxes towards their government housing men, only for those men to rape them in the street. It mustn't be nice when you've been raped to think that your own money has been spent giving asylum to your rapist, that your own money has affectively funded your rape. It's pretty terrible when you pay for the existence of a government so that it can serve and protect you, and instead the government has spent your money housing foreigners who have raped you and many other women (women who have all paid for their rapists meals and the roofs above their head). So yes, I think that this scenario is absurd, horrific, and almost Kafkaesque, and I don't think single male migrants should be allowed in, because I would rather try to prevent mass rapes happening, even if the rapists only make up a small minority of the male migrants, because I think the safety of the governments taxpayer's, of the people who actually pay for the existence of a government so that it can serve them, is the top priority.


    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I hold Muslims to the same standards as everyone else, you do not.
    Nice argument.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    But you seem to be missing the very basic point. People can think whatever they want. As long as they do not act on those thoughts there is no problem.
    And you also seem to be missing your own point, because I can think whatever I want. That doesn't mean no one should criticise what I think, or even that no one should think very negatively of me for what I think. Also, while I obviously do not agree that Muslims should be punished for their thoughts or persuasions, apparently many Muslims do think gays should be punished for making love. Why aren't you going after them? After all, my thoughts are just that, thoughts, and all I wish to do is criticise other people's thoughts which contrast with my own. I do not want anyone to be punished. However, many Muslims actually believe people should be punished for being gay. So why spare your energy on me, rather than them? I am the one who clearly believes that people can think what they want, and gays can love whoever they want. Yet you continue to attack me. Why aren't you spending your energy arguing against the people who actually don't think gays should be allowed to make love?

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I personally think a right wing, libertarian economic view is far, far, far more dangerous than a socially conservative attitude as the former leads to huge levels of poverty, which is so often the perfect breeding ground for extremism to flourish.
    Well, its nice that you think that, but then again we go back to that survey which apparently seems to show that it isn't true: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...d-9754062.html

    Although I don't actually support fully libertarian economics anyway.

    It's funny how you keep hounding me for providing statistics to back up my ideas. You see, that's where I try to deduce my opinions from; evidence. Even if its always best to be skeptical of evidence, even if you can never be sure, I'd still rather side with some evidence rather than zero evidence.

    Evidence is something you have provided none of, and if you continue to provide none, I shan't bother to continue arguing with you, as arguing against conjecture is pointless and I won't learn anything. If you can teach me something with your next response, I'll respond. If it's just full of your own personal opinions based on absolutely no evidence, I shan't, because I won't gain anything from the discussion.
 
 
 
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: August 4, 2016
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
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.