Election

[caz]

I can admit, I do believe if a person thinks they are something other than what they actually are, then that person has a mental problem.

And there we have it. If a person demonstrates beyond all doubt that they are a racist by the views they express, but thinks they are anything other than a racist, would you admit that they have a mental problem?

Disparage my sentiments if you like, but unless we face the problem we can never hope to solve it. Political Correctness of the 80's is what has led us to this moment in time.

I'm still wondering what problem 'we' face, and need to solve, because of the existence of trans men and women. What has political correctness got to do with it? If you truly believe such people are suffering from a mental problem, along with all the other problems they only face because of other people's ignorance, don't they deserve your compassion, rather than your blanket condemnation?

Focus on what matters, is what I'm saying.

So focus on solving your own problems, Jon, if it matters to you so much that trans men and women might one day be accepted into the club with the rest of us.

[Karl]

Please post all further comments to Tab and Karl,

Number 7 Woke Street,
Fluffybunnyshire,
Soundbitesville.
Planet Notthisone.

Where everyone is lovely and kind and no one dislikes anyone else and no one ever says anything that might upset someone else.

Is that the best straw man you can come up with? No one is saying everyone is nice. All we are saying is you're wrong for saying everyone isn't. Most aren't, and that's a demonstrable fact.

And when the streets are full of people saying ‘death to all infidels’

When is that, exactly? I have never encountered such a street. Neither have you.

And when the population tells you in poll after poll after poll after poll after poll that they have concerns then we can still ignore them because they don’t really mean it. Do they?

Why rely on facts when you can lean on polls?

All of the things that have happened over the last few years, some of them mentioned on here, and there’s more that we’re all aware of and you can still say ‘hey there’s no problem,it’s just the right wing press making it all up.’

There are far more islamophobic incidents than the other way around. But, of course, if you stick to media which tend to report on foreigners, then you might almost be excused for believing there's some sort of epidemic.

What is the point in constantly bringing up the moderates. Of course most Muslims are good people;

That's a relief to hear you say. I thought 100% of them were fundies. That's what you said before.

it shouldn’t need stating like a mantra.

You're right, it shouldn't need stating. But it's folks like you who necessitate it.

But it’s not them that are the problem and I don’t see them weeding out the extremists from their communities.

Why would you see it? You're not in their communities. When moderates talk to the fanatics in their circle, they tell them to take it down a notch. They don't hang them out to dry for you to see.

You bring stuff up and you just get arrogance and condescension from in response Tab. Fine. Quote your percentages to the families of the people that died on 9/11.

Oh Jesus H. Christ. Yes, a lot of victims, but only 19 terrorists. You going to blame Islam for making these particular terrorists super efficient or something? Besides, even though they were Muslim, the motive - and targets - were secular. And what do you have to say to the families of the Christchurch victims? Or Utøya? Or Yemen, for crying out loud?

I am sure they will be relieved to hear that "that's just the risks you'll have to accept if you want to live in the same world as us".

[caz]

The first gay friendly mosque opened in 2011, I believe, in Cape Town, stemming from a Muslim support group for homosexuals founded in 1996. Just saying.

Something else for people to get angry about then, Karl, if they fear homosexuals almost as much as they fear Muslims.

Love,

Caz
X

[Svensson]

As I posted previously, it's more to do with the men, than their beliefs.
Yet, statistics do not lie. Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Turkey, and others have noticed a sharp increase in rape since migrants entered their respective countries.
The presence of foreign migrants is the cause, debating whether culture or theology is the problem only sidesteps the central issue.


Operation Stovewood: Taxi driver who raped young girls in Rotherham jailed for 13 years

https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/operation-stovewood-taxi-driver-who-raped-young-girls-in-rotherham-jailed-for-13-years

Girl 'raped and strangled to death on sinking boat' in front of horrified mum

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/girl-raped-strangled-death-sinking-33123155

Turkish migrant arrested for allegedly raping 15-year-old girl in his car in Albany

https://nypost.com/2024/06/27/us-new...rl-in-his-car/

You can post anecdotal evidence all day. Likewise, I could post examples of Man United fans comitting crimes for days and day if this was my assertion. In the end, the overall statistics on asian crime are as follows:

• According to the 2021 Census, the total population of England and Wales was 59.6 million, and 81.7% of the population was white
• People from Asian ethnic groups made up the second largest percentage of the population (9.3%), followed by black (4.0%), mixed (2.9%) and other (2.1%) ethnic groups

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures....-wales/latest/

Meanwhile, [in 2022], Males from the Asian ethnic group accounted for 7% of male prosecutions and convictions, higher than females from the Asian ethnic group, who represented 3% of female prosecutions and 2% of female convictions.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/ethnicity-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2022/statistics-on-ethnicity-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2022-html#offender-characteristics

If we are to assume an equal number of males and females in the asian population (and this is generous as some claim that many asian men have multiple wifes), we arrive at an average prosecution and conviction rate of 5% and 4.5% respectively.

So 9% of the population commit 5% of the crime. What does this tell us?

Cheers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh Jesus H. Christ. Yes, a lot of victims, but only 19 terrorists. You going to blame Islam for making these particular terrorists super efficient or something? Besides, even though they were Muslim, the motive - and targets - were secular.

Secular?!!! There’s only so much wilful nonsense I can put up with so I’ll wave the white flag (as you have in the face of the greatest threat to the free world).

I’d suggest that some serious growing up needs to be done. I think that if more people in the world focused on dealing with the issues that exist rather than focusing on making themselves look good then we might eventually get somewhere.

[Karl]

Secular?!!! There’s only so much wilful nonsense I can put up with so I’ll wave the white flag (as you have in the face of the greatest threat to the free world).

What's religious about the World Trade Center?
What's religious about the Pentagon?

If you are trying to claim that this was somehow motivated in religion, then I trust you consider both world wars religious conflicts as well? They had field priests blessing bombs and artillery shells, for heaven's sake. Can't get much more religious than that. Or... is it only religious when people say "Allah" instead of "God" or "Jesus"?

I’d suggest that some serious growing up needs to be done. I think that if more people in the world focused on dealing with the issues that exist rather than focusing on making themselves look good then we might eventually get somewhere.

I was about to say the same thing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m not interested in apologists.

[The Baron]

From Wiki:

"On 6 and 9 August 1945, the United States detonated two atomic bombs over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bombings killed between 129,000 and 226,000 people, most of whom were civilians, and remain the only use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict"



The Baron

[Karl]

I’m not interested in apologists.

Sure, that seems perfectly in line with your MO: pick a label to stick on someone so you won't have to consider their worth. He's in the wrong because he's a Muslim. He's in the wrong because he's an apologist. Who needs reason when one has labels!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sure, that seems perfectly in line with your MO: pick a label to stick on someone so you won't have to consider their worth. He's in the wrong because he's a Muslim. He's in the wrong because he's an apologist. Who needs reason when one has labels!

Can your points get weaker Karl. It’s the woke who are the arch-labellers. I’ve never said that someone is wrong just because they are a Muslim. But I’ll say that jihadist Muslims was wrong to fly planes into the World Trade Centre or are you one of those who say that the USA were somehow to blame? You seem to believe that any word of criticism constitutes some kind of hate crime. THIS is the problem. The phrase “you can’t say that.” And not enough people standing up to say “no, you can’t do that.”

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

It appears that you endorse the principle that the only legitimate law is that formulated by the more successful English robber barons when they declared themselves to be the establishment, and argued by white men dressed in robes and powdered wigs. It was from that law that the pilgrims wished to escape to the New World, to set up their own new laws, which specifically excluded the native population. So why did these new laws and culture take precedence over that of the natives? As always, the force of arms.

George.
My replies to your post were based on the principal that "we" cannot judge the past with modern laws.
Judge the past with the laws available at the time.

I suspect, with considerable dread, that your final paragraph may turn out to be true. The nature of modern weaponry is such that an escalation in this regard will not provide a desired outcome for either side. This would seem inevitable while ever weaponry is preferred to diplomacy.

Revolutions begin after long periods of time when the ruling authority have ignored the populace.
This Labor govt. need to tread lightly, they were not elected by an overwhelming majority of Labor supporters.
They were elected by an overwhelming dissatisfaction with the Cons. Party.

[Wickerman]

I'm frankly shocked that you would have a problem with any of those traditionally vulnerable and persecuted minorities yourself, but sadly no longer surprised.

Caz.
If you look back you will see I have no problem with Transgender themselves, by that I mean no problem associating with them.
Some can be quite funny to talk with, they have a vocabulary that sets them apart from others - a conversation can be quite amusing.

The problem begins when they want to change rules or laws that effect others, to benefit only them.
An example is their desire to dismiss 'the fact of only two sexes' being taught in schools, and books that teach the same factual information being removed from school libraries.

As plenty of women have also complained about transgender men being assigned to women's toilets & change rooms, then it must be a problem for regular females.
The reasoning put forward was the govt. don't want to endanger Transgender men by putting them in men's washrooms for fear of physical harm. So, they put them in women's washrooms where biological females are placed at risk by men posing as women, where the female is open to risk of being raped if alone, or leered at while changing.
The complaint originated with women, so don't tell me it is not a valid complaint.

[Wickerman]

None of those things are relevant in asylum applications. Granting asylum is a humanitarian effort, not "what can you do for us?" You also can't screen for potential offenders beyond looking at whether or not someone has form. As for extreme beliefs... hate to be the one to have to tell you, but your beliefs are pretty extreme. Not least because you seem to be advocating for a thought police. "We're only going to help you if you have correct thoughts." Way to win their hearts and minds.

Right in your first line is where we disagree - to you they are all asylum seekers, to others they are mostly illegal migrants.
Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.

As you are no doubt well aware, the new running mate for Trump has noticed Britain has a significant Islamist problem.
I know he was making light, but if this is noticeable to our biggest ally, then maybe you should re-evaluate your thinking.
People in Britain are telling you what is happening, take the blinkers off.

Strengthening the borders is not extremist.
Perhaps being raised in a country where 'spare the rod and spoil the child' was replaced with Political Correctness, has raised a generation of Lotus Eaters who are scared of making a decision for fear of offending someone.

Immigration is only useful if it benefits the country, applicants must meet certain standards.
If anyone is to be allowed entry by circumventing the standards then particular attention must be paid to their application.
As it is right now we have no idea how many are genuine asylum seekers and how many are opportunist migrants.

The status quo a recipe for disaster.

[Wickerman]

You have a very strange idea about the BBC, Jon. If anything, the balance shifted to the right a long while ago, with toxic tories who knew bugger all being invited to spout their utter tripe alongside genuine independent experts "in the interests of balance". Balance, my arse.

Up until recently, one of Boris Johnson's right wing cronies was in charge of the BBC, but he resigned when it was revealed that he had given Boris a hefty loan so the incorrigible liar could keep up with his extravagant lifestyle.

Labor just sanctioned the continued funding by License fees until 2027.
After that they are looking at direct funding from central taxation.
The BBC needs to lick the boots of the office that grants them your license fee - for now.

I've watched news from European countries that have been edited down when shown on the BBC.
Subjects that might prove embarrassing for the British govt. have been edited out, or reworded.

[Wickerman]

Sure, that seems perfectly in line with your MO: pick a label to stick on someone so you won't have to consider their worth. He's in the wrong because he's a Muslim. He's in the wrong because he's an apologist. Who needs reason when one has labels!

On this thread, the first to throw insults (labels?) like "racist" and "Islamophobic" came from your side of the fence.