Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The very fact that you've just used an article from the Daily Mail to support your argument shows that you're running out of "proof" because your views aren't the views of the mainstream. Reports from tabloid newspapers are usually taken with a pinch of salt, because most people know that the majority of what is reported in a tabloid is hyperbolic drivel. The Daily Mail is no exception.

    As happens, people have more cause to disregard the Mail than other papers, as it is known to have a fairly racist political stance. In 1934, the paper was openly supportive of Oswald Mosely, and in fact, the Blackshirts. Lord Rothermere, who at the time, had full control of the paper was also a friend and supporter of both Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. It's not without reason the paper is still referred to as "The Daily Heil".

    The article you used to illustrate your point was no more than sensationalist, baseless, and unquantifiable nonsense. "Muslim hate fanatics plan to take over Britain by having more babies and forcing a population explosion, it has been revealed." Revealed by who, might I ask? Ahh "the Sun newspaper reported." True experts, then? The whole article is scattered with rubbish like that.

    Really, by using such nonsenical "evidence", all you're doing is re-enforcing the collective consensus that you really have very little to say that is worth listening to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slice)
    The very fact that you've just used an article from the Daily Mail to support your argument shows that you're running out of "proof" because your views aren't the views of the mainstream. Reports from tabloid newspapers are usually taken with a pinch of salt, because most people know that the majority of what is reported in a tabloid is hyperbolic drivel. The Daily Mail is no exception.

    As happens, people have more cause to disregard the Mail than other papers, as it is known to have a fairly racist political stance. In 1934, the paper was openly supportive of Oswald Mosely, and in fact, the Blackshirts. Lord Rothermere, who at the time, had full control of the paper was also a friend and supporter of both Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. It's not without reason the paper is still referred to as "The Daily Heil".

    The article you used to illustrate your point was no more than sensationalist, baseless, and unquantifiable nonsense. "Muslim hate fanatics plan to take over Britain by having more babies and forcing a population explosion, it has been revealed." Revealed by who, might I ask? Ahh "the Sun newspaper reported." True experts, then? The whole article is scattered with rubbish like that.

    Really, by using such nonsenical "evidence", all you're doing is re-enforcing the collective consensus that you really have very little to say that is worth listening to.
    The Guardian is just as ridiculously hyperbolic as any tabloid.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yuffie)
    The Guardian is just as ridiculously hyperbolic as any tabloid.
    I didn't say it wasn't. I merely stated that tabloids in general are usually taken less seriously than the broadsheets becasue they tend to be more extremely hyperbolic.
    The point I was making was that The Daily Mail can hardly be used as proof of someones argument as they are a) biased in their opinions and b) full of hyperbolic nonsense!

    Like I said, the article was rubbish, whether the Guardian is hyperbolic or not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slice)
    I didn't say it wasn't. I merely stated that tabloids in general are usually taken less seriously than the broadsheets becasue they tend to be more extremely hyperbolic.
    The point I was making was that The Daily Mail can hardly be used as proof of someones argument as they are a) biased in their opinions and b) full of hyperbolic nonsense!

    Like I said, the article was rubbish, whether the Guardian is hyperbolic or not.
    From what I read in the argument it didn't state an opinion, just reported the facts :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yuffie)
    From what I read in the argument it didn't state an opinion, just reported the facts :confused:
    No, what it did was stated some "facts" which had no evidence at all to support them. The article is nonsense.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry, I didn't realise newspapers had footnotes and sources now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yuffie)
    Sorry, I didn't realise newspapers had footnotes and sources now.
    Good God. Are you deliberately being idiotic? It seems like you're just picking a fight.

    If an a newspaper want to print an article about something as sensationalist as Muslims planning to have more babies so that they can take over the UK from within, then they should surely expect that people will question it. Therefore, it woud make a lot of sense to give some sort of proof that this is actually what is being planned. However, the article doesn't. All it does is say that this thing is happening. It is neccesary to substantiate claims sometimes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slice)
    Good God. Are you deliberately being idiotic? It seems like you're just picking a fight.

    If an a newspaper want to print an article about something as sensationalist as Muslims planning to have more babies so that they can take over the UK from within, then they should surely expect that people will question it. Therefore, it woud make a lot of sense to give some sort of proof that this is actually what is being planned. However, the article doesn't. All it does is say that this thing is happening. It is neccesary to substantiate claims sometimes.
    Personally I would question this more, as it gives even less proof

    what a load of sensationalist ********
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yuffie)
    Personally I would question this more, as it gives even less proof

    what a load of sensationalist ********
    I'm sorry, you're trying to defend the Daily Mail, and at the same time claiming that the Guardian is sensationalist?

    What's next, the Financial Times suddenly recruiting neo-Nazi journalists?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oh don't be ridiculous.

    Since when has conspiricy theorism about Muslims having babies been comparable to Global warming?! The reason there isn't an awful lot in the article to quantify it, is because global warming has been a point of public speculation for years.
    Like I said, you're just trying to pick a fight.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    I'm sorry, you're trying to defend the Daily Mail, and at the same time claiming that the Guardian is sensationalist?

    What's next, the Financial Times suddenly recruiting neo-Nazi journalists?
    THANKYOU! Finally, someone with a little sense.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    it is within your rights completely, its just beyond reach of anyones sanity.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    ofcourse it is your right!......most ppl are against the BNP but at the end of the day they are still a political party so u can vote 4 them if u wish....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pavlik)
    It was not attempting to offer a rigorous proof that muslims are ethnocentric or are outbreeding us (the far higher birth-rate is a demographic fact, though), just a reminder to Melancholy that it is only whites like him who would demand 'absolute and certain terms' before pursuing their reproductive interests.

    It is rather amusing that you refer to 1934 when claiming that the Daily Mail of today is 'racist'. I don't believe a Briton transported from 1934 to today would believe his eyes. And to me the Daily Mail is just another, slightly less PC, pro-race-replacement rag.
    Hear hear.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Pavlik)
    ...It's not about what nature wants, it's what I want...
    Then don't date black women, other than that I don't give a monkey's nuts what you happen to want. If other people, black, white or purple, have little or no regard for what some, such as yourself, want them to think of as their 'genetic interest' then there's not really much you can do about it. Indeed all the current evidence shows that people quite happily 'intermingle' with those from different ethnic origins.

    In short, concern about the alleged genetic 'relatedness' or 'interest' of a society is only of value to those who choose to make it so, and as I don't care how white (or black) future generations of the UK (or the world generally) might or might not be then it's not a problem for me. Aside from the fact you're fighting a cause based on utterly erroneous and unscientific notions, you do know that you're losing that fight anyway, don't you?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    You should remember this startling bout of libertarianism the next time you're trying to tell us that marx showed scientifically that mankind is a social animal and so the choice of whether or not to meet his definition of sociability should be taken out of our hands...
    I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting here. I don't see Marx as a reductivist in materialist terms, though I think some following have presented Marxism in these terms. I don't think that acceptance of ourselves as social animals means we need think of ourselves as utterly at the mercy of evolutionary forces in some mechanistic moment-by-moment sense. I take plenty of my Marxist inspiration from E.P. Thompson too - a historian ever to understand the complexities of human agency within the context of social and economic forces.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    For example, if Europeans slaughtered half of Pakistan and settled there themselves, then come 100 years time, there would surely be many mixed-race Pakistani-Europeans there - however, this does not imply that the Pakistanis were complicit in their replacement. For one thing, women are not naturally inclined to defend territory, that is the role of men - if the European men wanted to take Pakistani women, then that would be quite easy for them, even if the Pakistanis resented the genocide and occupation.
    Just the other day someone mugged me and took my white, Aryan girlfriend off me She tried to say no but the police said it was allowed to further the cause of the replacement of the white race.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pavlik)
    I didn't know five-year-olds had girlfriends.
    And suddenly your misplaced anger becomes clear. Someone wasn't loved as a child
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    For every black girl you don't reproduce with,

    I'm going to reproduce with three
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pavlik)
    You should visit London, Bradford, Leicester, Birmingham...

    The darkies already have taken over.
    Not true in the slightest.

    Utter, utter bull.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.