"I'm a gay man and mass Muslim immigration terrifies me"
Discussion
Bluebarge said:
Again, you portray yourself as the fount of all logic and assume that people that oppose your views are not "rational". You then ascribe to them characteristics that explain their lack of reason, which characteristics you have fabricated to explain the apparent anomaly of seemingly rational people not agreeing with you.
The alternative view , that a certain level of immigration is necessary for an economy that wishes to expand, most especially one with an ageing population and a high welfare spend, is one you wilfully ignore, or assume is evidence of irrationality. The German economy is facing medium-to-long-term decline precisely because it does not have enough immigration to feed its economy. But then, all those economists are plainly nuts and we'd be much better off with a closed economy that is reliant on Chinese orders for stuff dug out of the ground, like Australia.
Somehow you have managed to directly quote my post and still construct a straw man as I said "I have always openly supporting an Australian style VISA system for highly skilled immigrants". So I am actually supporting a certain level of immigration.The alternative view , that a certain level of immigration is necessary for an economy that wishes to expand, most especially one with an ageing population and a high welfare spend, is one you wilfully ignore, or assume is evidence of irrationality. The German economy is facing medium-to-long-term decline precisely because it does not have enough immigration to feed its economy. But then, all those economists are plainly nuts and we'd be much better off with a closed economy that is reliant on Chinese orders for stuff dug out of the ground, like Australia.
So what we are talking about here is the difference between, say, taking 100K skilled migrants a year and taking 400K of whoever shows up and the supporters of the later camp describing anyone who supports the former as "ignorant bigots".
In terms of low skilled migration needed to support high welfare spending you now have to be earning, as a household, over £40K a year for the average household to be a net contributor to the state.
JagLover said:
In terms of low skilled migration needed to support high welfare spending you now have to be earning, as a household, over £40K a year for the average household to be a net contributor to the state.
This is patently nonsense or twisted figures. For it to be true, only approximately 10% of working people in the UK would be net contributors (from http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/25/uk-in...To try to imply that the other 90% of employed people are, therefore, not worth having is so incorrect as to make me wonder why you say them? That's a serious question by the way. You spend a lot of time researching figure to prove that immigration is bad, and yet almost anyone with the most basic grasp of maths can see your statement there and know for a fact that it is completely wrong, or completely misleading which begs the question as to whether you are deliberately trying to mislead or whether you genuinely have no grasp of the meaning of the things you recite?
blindswelledrat said:
This is patently nonsense or twisted figures. For it to be true, only approximately 10% of working people in the UK would be net contributors (from http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/25/uk-in...
To try to imply that the other 90% of employed people are, therefore, not worth having is so incorrect as to make me wonder why you say them? That's a serious question by the way. You spend a lot of time researching figure to prove that immigration is bad, and yet almost anyone with the most basic grasp of maths can see your statement there and know for a fact that it is completely wrong, or completely misleading which begs the question as to whether you are deliberately trying to mislead or whether you genuinely have no grasp of the meaning of the things you recite?
Do I have to explain the difference between "household" and "individual" nowTo try to imply that the other 90% of employed people are, therefore, not worth having is so incorrect as to make me wonder why you say them? That's a serious question by the way. You spend a lot of time researching figure to prove that immigration is bad, and yet almost anyone with the most basic grasp of maths can see your statement there and know for a fact that it is completely wrong, or completely misleading which begs the question as to whether you are deliberately trying to mislead or whether you genuinely have no grasp of the meaning of the things you recite?
http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/reports/the-pro...
The start of the fourth quintile of households by gross income is around £40K
JagLover said:
Bluebarge said:
Again, you portray yourself as the fount of all logic and assume that people that oppose your views are not "rational". You then ascribe to them characteristics that explain their lack of reason, which characteristics you have fabricated to explain the apparent anomaly of seemingly rational people not agreeing with you.
The alternative view , that a certain level of immigration is necessary for an economy that wishes to expand, most especially one with an ageing population and a high welfare spend, is one you wilfully ignore, or assume is evidence of irrationality. The German economy is facing medium-to-long-term decline precisely because it does not have enough immigration to feed its economy. But then, all those economists are plainly nuts and we'd be much better off with a closed economy that is reliant on Chinese orders for stuff dug out of the ground, like Australia.
Somehow you have managed to directly quote my post and still construct a straw man as I said "I have always openly supporting an Australian style VISA system for highly skilled immigrants". So I am actually supporting a certain level of immigration.The alternative view , that a certain level of immigration is necessary for an economy that wishes to expand, most especially one with an ageing population and a high welfare spend, is one you wilfully ignore, or assume is evidence of irrationality. The German economy is facing medium-to-long-term decline precisely because it does not have enough immigration to feed its economy. But then, all those economists are plainly nuts and we'd be much better off with a closed economy that is reliant on Chinese orders for stuff dug out of the ground, like Australia.
So what we are talking about here is the difference between, say, taking 100K skilled migrants a year and taking 400K of whoever shows up and the supporters of the later camp describing anyone who supports the former as "ignorant bigots".
In terms of low skilled migration needed to support high welfare spending you now have to be earning, as a household, over £40K a year for the average household to be a net contributor to the state.
I disagree with you but I simply think you are wrong and I don't mind if you think the same of me. Why the compulsion to diagnose a deficiency in those who put the other side of the argument?
AJS- said:
What's your point here?
Simply that extremism needs to be denounced by all society and saying that moderate Muslims have some sort of responsibility, to assume a position whereby they denounce radicalism to almost prove themselves to the rest of us, will stigmatise them and make them even more of a target. Every day our media exacerbates the situation with their selective stories, such as telling us the terrorists in Paris were refugees, when in fact they were EU passport holders. I guess it's not quite so emotive to publish the fact that more Muslims were killed in Paris, than committed the atrocity?
ISIS do not represent Islam and are certainly not what one might deem devout Muslim. One of the Paris attackers owned a bar, which shows just how much his faith really meant. These people are simply perverting Islam for their own ends.
e21
It's not about Muslims needing to denounce these things for the benefit of the rest of us. What I question is how many are truly opposed to it. How many are really against religious violence always and everywhere? Many don't make this very clear and appear to be quietly condoning the ends, even if they condemn the means.
As for 'perverting Islam' - we hear this a lot. How exactly are they perverting it?
It's not about Muslims needing to denounce these things for the benefit of the rest of us. What I question is how many are truly opposed to it. How many are really against religious violence always and everywhere? Many don't make this very clear and appear to be quietly condoning the ends, even if they condemn the means.
As for 'perverting Islam' - we hear this a lot. How exactly are they perverting it?
longblackcoat said:
AJS- said:
I have a pet theory
Yes, I think everyone's aware of it by now. I have a belief that anyone who uses the phrase 'pet theory' is really saying "look, here's some stuff I made up, based on nothing more strongly-held but poorly-informed views". But that's just my pet theory.
I described that part as a pet theory because that is precisely what it is, rather than a strongly held opinion.
AJS- said:
e21
It's not about Muslims needing to denounce these things for the benefit of the rest of us. What I question is how many are truly opposed to it. How many are really against religious violence always and everywhere? Many don't make this very clear and appear to be quietly condoning the ends, even if they condemn the means.
As for 'perverting Islam' - we hear this a lot. How exactly are they perverting it?
THe problem is that you assume they all 'don't make it clear' because they haven't queued up outside your house and told you and your views will always assume the worst of them all.It's not about Muslims needing to denounce these things for the benefit of the rest of us. What I question is how many are truly opposed to it. How many are really against religious violence always and everywhere? Many don't make this very clear and appear to be quietly condoning the ends, even if they condemn the means.
As for 'perverting Islam' - we hear this a lot. How exactly are they perverting it?
How would you suggest they make it clear so that people like you might understand that they are equally horrified.
How about, for example, a full page advert in a national newspaper. Would that make you stop thinking the worst of 'them'? Or would you just invent other reasons in your head why it counts for nothing and in reality just because they have now communicated their disgust, it doesn't mean they don't still think it is okay
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/muslim-council-o...
AJS- said:
e21
It's not about Muslims needing to denounce these things for the benefit of the rest of us. What I question is how many are truly opposed to it. How many are really against religious violence always and everywhere? Many don't make this very clear and appear to be quietly condoning the ends, even if they condemn the means.
As for 'perverting Islam' - we hear this a lot. How exactly are they perverting it?
Maybe perverting isn't the best choice of word? Manipulating, by taking parts of Islam out of context, or simply ignoring those parts that are at odds with their actions? All of which can and is as easily done using passages from the bible. There are thousands butchered in the name of Christianity but you can't assume therefore, that all Christians condone the ultimate outcome being sought. It's not about Muslims needing to denounce these things for the benefit of the rest of us. What I question is how many are truly opposed to it. How many are really against religious violence always and everywhere? Many don't make this very clear and appear to be quietly condoning the ends, even if they condemn the means.
As for 'perverting Islam' - we hear this a lot. How exactly are they perverting it?
Sorry, but who are the many you speak of? Personally I only know 8 or 9 Muslims and they are all anti ISIS and all it stands for.
ETA - just wanted to say am just having friendly discussion. (Seems to be too many threads like this that descend into personal insults)
Edited by e21Mark on Friday 20th November 11:10
e21Mark said:
AJS- said:
e21
It's not about Muslims needing to denounce these things for the benefit of the rest of us. What I question is how many are truly opposed to it. How many are really against religious violence always and everywhere? Many don't make this very clear and appear to be quietly condoning the ends, even if they condemn the means.
As for 'perverting Islam' - we hear this a lot. How exactly are they perverting it?
Maybe perverting isn't the best choice of word? Manipulating, by taking parts of Islam out of context, or simply ignoring those parts that are at odds with their actions? All of which can and is as easily done using passages from the bible. There are thousands butchered in the name of Christianity but you can't assume therefore, that all Christians condone the ultimate outcome being sought. It's not about Muslims needing to denounce these things for the benefit of the rest of us. What I question is how many are truly opposed to it. How many are really against religious violence always and everywhere? Many don't make this very clear and appear to be quietly condoning the ends, even if they condemn the means.
As for 'perverting Islam' - we hear this a lot. How exactly are they perverting it?
Sorry, but who are the many you speak of? Personally I only know 8 or 9 Muslims and they are all anti ISIS and all it stands for.
ETA - just wanted to say am just having friendly discussion. (Seems to be too many threads like this that descend into personal insults)
I don't see that IS or any other Islamic extremists are manipulating it or taking anything out of context. They are sticking to it very strictly. The parts of it that appear to go against their teachings are the ones most often taken out of context or manipulated. An example is the nice idea that to a Muslim killing one person is like killing all man kind. It does indeed say this, but a bit more context:
Quran 5:32 said:
Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.
The Children of Israel (Jews) are prohibited from killing. And the following verse for a bit more context:Quran 5:33 said:
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,
Which doesn't really sound very peaceful to me.You can find *stories* of brutality and cruelty in the Bible aplenty but I don't know of any direct exhortations to it as clear as that. The one usually cited as peaceful. Though I don't claim to know the Bible inside out and could be wrong on this.
But there's another key difference. The bible was never the revealed word of God, quote by quote. It is stories and teachings recorded by men. So even if Jesus had been a war lord and led a bloody conquest of Jerusalem and told his followed to 'slay the non-believers wherever you find them' (4:89, 9:5, 2:191 and more) this could be interpreted as being in the context of the time and place, and given a metaphorical spin to mean you should speak against disbelief.
Apart from the fact that Jesus didn't do this, you can't do the same with the Quran because it is the revealed word of God, verbatim and it is very direct commands, not parables and metaphors.
'Many; is pretty much all. In the British context Maajid Nawaz is probably the most prominent Muslim who I have heard actually defending secular democracy versus the teachings of Islam.
This fairly lengthy article on the site of British Muslims for Secular Democracy argues against the prosecution of a Pastor in Northern Ireland who claimed that Islam was satanic.
I see those sort of things as demonstrating a genuine belief in secular democracy. Condemning grotesque violence is easy. I see the Muslim Council of Britain doing this and using it as a platform to continue the fantasy that it's a 'religion of peace' misread by a few extremists.
Quite agree no need for insults, and hope I haven't come across as being personally insulting to anyone on here.
AJS, you exhibit a fine veneer of logic disguising a twisted view of anything muslim.
How much searching have you done their to find those two really tenuous quotes and then tried to make them sound worse than they are?
Your first quote says pretty much nothing. Perhaps it says "It is really bad if a Jew kills". Do you disagree with that? I don't. It is just such a meaningless sentence and yet you are desperate to try and imply it proves something.
The second one says "If you wage war on us we will crucify you and cut your hands and feet off. Or if we are feeling happy we will just send you away". So what? What is the thing that you are desperately trying to squeeze from that sentence that makes you determined to be anti-muslim? Havent you been arguing for anyone who wages war against England to be sent away. Or worse?
You are utterly obsessed to the extent that your mind can no longer distinguish relevant and irrelevant information and you are so desperate for the topic of Islam to be a black and white issue where Islam=Bad with no grey areas that you are losing all sense of perspective.
How much searching have you done their to find those two really tenuous quotes and then tried to make them sound worse than they are?
Your first quote says pretty much nothing. Perhaps it says "It is really bad if a Jew kills". Do you disagree with that? I don't. It is just such a meaningless sentence and yet you are desperate to try and imply it proves something.
The second one says "If you wage war on us we will crucify you and cut your hands and feet off. Or if we are feeling happy we will just send you away". So what? What is the thing that you are desperately trying to squeeze from that sentence that makes you determined to be anti-muslim? Havent you been arguing for anyone who wages war against England to be sent away. Or worse?
You are utterly obsessed to the extent that your mind can no longer distinguish relevant and irrelevant information and you are so desperate for the topic of Islam to be a black and white issue where Islam=Bad with no grey areas that you are losing all sense of perspective.
blindswelledrat said:
AJS, you exhibit a fine veneer of logic disguising a twisted view of anything muslim.
How much searching have you done their to find those two really tenuous quotes and then tried to make them sound worse than they are?
Your first quote says pretty much nothing. Perhaps it says "It is really bad if a Jew kills". Do you disagree with that? I don't. It is just such a meaningless sentence and yet you are desperate to try and imply it proves something.
The second one says "If you wage war on us we will crucify you and cut your hands and feet off. Or if we are feeling happy we will just send you away". So what? What is the thing that you are desperately trying to squeeze from that sentence that makes you determined to be anti-muslim? Havent you been arguing for anyone who wages war against England to be sent away. Or worse?
You are utterly obsessed to the extent that your mind can no longer distinguish relevant and irrelevant information and you are so desperate for the topic of Islam to be a black and white issue where Islam=Bad with no grey areas that you are losing all sense of perspective.
As per the post, these are quotes usually trotted out (in part) by moderate Muslims to prove that Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion. It takes as much research as going to www.quran.com and looking up the relevant verse in any of the 6 translations to see it in full. How much searching have you done their to find those two really tenuous quotes and then tried to make them sound worse than they are?
Your first quote says pretty much nothing. Perhaps it says "It is really bad if a Jew kills". Do you disagree with that? I don't. It is just such a meaningless sentence and yet you are desperate to try and imply it proves something.
The second one says "If you wage war on us we will crucify you and cut your hands and feet off. Or if we are feeling happy we will just send you away". So what? What is the thing that you are desperately trying to squeeze from that sentence that makes you determined to be anti-muslim? Havent you been arguing for anyone who wages war against England to be sent away. Or worse?
You are utterly obsessed to the extent that your mind can no longer distinguish relevant and irrelevant information and you are so desperate for the topic of Islam to be a black and white issue where Islam=Bad with no grey areas that you are losing all sense of perspective.
The point is not the merits or otherwise of Jews killing people, but that this oft cited quote does not prohibit Muslims from killing people, as apologists often claim. The second part demonstrates that it is not, as is sometimes claimed 'taken out of context' but a very real exhortation to kill and maim the enemies of Islam.
Actually I've done a lot more research than that as I find it very interesting. Are you saying that I shouldn't look into Islam? The supposedly peaceful religion whose name has been cited in a string of atrocities around the world and whose defenders claim it is essentially peaceful and tolerant?
How much research have you done into whether or not your conviction that it's not that bad is actually true?
I'm not looking to squeeze anything out of anything. My contention is that the real root of many of the problems associated with 'radical' Islam is in fact Islam itself, not just a few instances of it being twisted, misrepresented or misinterpreted.
There are countless grey areas and I have said a several times that many/most Muslims live peacefully alongside people of other religions and none. It doesn't mean the religion itself is benign.
As I see it, it points towards the need for a deep rooted reform of the religion itself to develop a new form of Islam which is true to the good principles in there (I've mentioned some of these too) but excludes the imperialist, supremacist and violent doctrines which are central to the core texts of the religion.
I've pointed out Muslims who say much the same thing.
The veneer of logic and desperate squeezing here is your attempt to dismiss all this as some form of hidden racism or unfounded religious bigotry. I could guess at why that is, but why don't you tell me your take on Islam and why you think what you think, and where you think I am wrong?
AJS- said:
Actually I've done a lot more research than that as I find it very interesting. Are you saying that I shouldn't look into Islam? The supposedly peaceful religion whose name has been cited in a string of atrocities around the world and whose defenders claim it is essentially peaceful and tolerant?
How much research have you done into whether or not your conviction that it's not that bad is actually true?
?
No. I think it is great that you want to learn the Quran.How much research have you done into whether or not your conviction that it's not that bad is actually true?
?
The shame is that you only want to do it so that you can win an argument as to why muslims are bad and you scour it cherry picking bad parts.
For me, no I haven't read it because I haven't the slightest interest. Firstly because I am not the obsessive that you are and secondly, I do not see the benefit in taking the literal interpretation of 1000 year old words and blanket applying them to uk muslims. Equally I don't do the same with the Bible.
The main difference between you and I, is that you are determined to believe that all muslims are the same.
If there were threads about the Taliban, for example, everything you ever say I would agree 100% with.
When you extrapolate that to everyone in the world then you go from being logical and coherent to racist.
You will never be able to see that and this has become more than obvious. On one hand you appear to be able to say "Oh, I know its not black and white but what about X?" but then all you need to do is see your obsession on thse threads and your utter focus on the negatives and their universal application
Where is the universal accusation? I have said in the post directly above that many/most Muslims are not violent.
What makes you say that I started from a point of view of wanting to have a go at Muslims?
The 'benefit' lies in understanding something which very clearly motivates a significant number of it's adherents to commit great acts of violence. Here in the western world. Today. I feel understanding this is essential to combatting it.
I don't feel the explanations of poverty, exclusion, lack of education or resentment over Israel adequately explain it.
The benefit of reading this 1,000 year old text literally is that this is exactly the way in which it is taken by devout Muslims and exactly how the book demands to be taken.
If you haven't the slightest interest then why so rigorously defend it or call me racist for attacking it? Would you do the same if I criticised Mein Kampf?
What makes you say that I started from a point of view of wanting to have a go at Muslims?
The 'benefit' lies in understanding something which very clearly motivates a significant number of it's adherents to commit great acts of violence. Here in the western world. Today. I feel understanding this is essential to combatting it.
I don't feel the explanations of poverty, exclusion, lack of education or resentment over Israel adequately explain it.
The benefit of reading this 1,000 year old text literally is that this is exactly the way in which it is taken by devout Muslims and exactly how the book demands to be taken.
If you haven't the slightest interest then why so rigorously defend it or call me racist for attacking it? Would you do the same if I criticised Mein Kampf?
blindswelledrat said:
....but then all you need to do is see your obsession on thse threads and your utter focus on the negatives and their universal application
In light of recent events, isn't it quite natural to focus on the negatives?I think you are the one who is portraying a 'black and white' view. Very few, if any are stupid enough to think that 'All Muslins are the same'
I am sure you spout that crap to try and score cheap points to keep your pretend moral high ground.
chris watton said:
In light of recent events, isn't it quite natural to focus on the negatives?
I think you are the one who is portraying a 'black and white' view. Very few, if any are stupid enough to think that 'All Muslins are the same'
I am sure you spout that crap to try and score cheap points to keep your pretend moral high ground.
You haven't actually said anything there. Just noise with no actual point.I think you are the one who is portraying a 'black and white' view. Very few, if any are stupid enough to think that 'All Muslins are the same'
I am sure you spout that crap to try and score cheap points to keep your pretend moral high ground.
And no,I don't have a black and white view of this. Far from it.
In fact, I don't even have a strong opinion on it at all, it just seems like I do in this present warped company.
My view could not be more middle of the road on this issue.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff