Tory leadership frontrunner attacks multiculturalism

[C0ckney]

clearly pwned etc.

well i've got some time on my hands now, so here we go.

whaleboy, your whole argument is based, not on actually arguing the point (because doing that would just make you look even more silly...), but rather on attacking the validity of the question. your argument rests on two things, firstly that you can't talk about 'islam' or 'muslims' as one group.

so i think it would be helpful to refresh our (your) memory, this is the original question which started this whole thing, posted by provost (who seems to have developed a great reluctance to carry on...)

is it just me who considers both Islam and Christianity to be an equal danger. I am no fan of religion and I certainly have no preference for one over the other...

you'll notice here that both 'islam' and 'christianity' are used and put up for comparison. now here what you have are two religious groups being compared, these groups are very broad, they encompass a whole range of views on the world and how faith fits into that, this SHOULD all go without saying. and you are right that you cannot simply talk about 'muslims' or 'christians' as if they are one homogenous group, but then no one has said that you can...

your argument is that you can't talk about a group simply because it is very broad, but the point is that here we have two EQUALLY broad groups that are being compared with each other regarding how dangerous or how much of a 'threat' they are. this is hardly a difficult concept, and if still can't grasp it, then i'm afraid i can't help you, except perhaps to suggest that you exchange some of your philosophy books for some mr. men volumes (no disrespect to the mr. men ).

which brings us neatly to your second 'point', that to make an argument that 'islam' is more dangerous than 'christianity' you have to narrow it down so much it becomes meaningless, why? because you say so of course! your argument only holds water if you're the one that does the narrowing and sets the limits, but it all falls down here, because your limits are wrong.

i think you could make the argument that islam is more of a threat than christianity to the whole world at the present time. but i'm well up for a bit of narrowing down, so i think that islam is more of a threat to the west, its societies, its values, and its people at the present time (this of course, includes the UK). if you want to argue differently then go ahead (good luck btw), but if you think that's too 'narrow' or whatever, then don't bother.

finally when i say that islam is more of a threat, i don't just mean the bombers, i mean also the 6% of british muslims who 'fully supported' the bombing of london, that's 100,000 people not only condoning but supporting terrorism and bloody murder.

[C0ckney]

and btw, cort haus, awesome stuff dude

[molly bloom]

Re: clearly pwned etc.

Originally posted by C0ckney


finally when i say that islam is more of a threat, i don't just mean the bombers, i mean also the 6% of british muslims who 'fully supported' the bombing of london, that's 100,000 people not only condoning but supporting terrorism and bloody murder.

As opposed to how many Ulster Protestants who supported the assassination and murder and bombing of fellow British citizens ?


Plus ca change...

[Provost Harrison]

Re: clearly pwned etc.

Originally posted by C0ckney
so i think it would be helpful to refresh our (your) memory, this is the original question which started this whole thing, posted by provost (who seems to have developed a great reluctance to carry on...)

Actually I have been back in Hull for a few days and it is very hard to be arsed to read through everything that has been said

you'll notice here that both 'islam' and 'christianity' are used and put up for comparison. now here what you have are two religious groups being compared, these groups are very broad, they encompass a whole range of views on the world and how faith fits into that, this SHOULD all go without saying. and you are right that you cannot simply talk about 'muslims' or 'christians' as if they are one homogenous group, but then no one has said that you can...

Erm, hang on a minute, it was you expressing your fear of Islam...now this change of tune.

your argument is that you can't talk about a group simply because it is very broad, but the point is that here we have two EQUALLY broad groups that are being compared with each other regarding how dangerous or how much of a 'threat' they are. this is hardly a difficult concept, and if still can't grasp it, then i'm afraid i can't help you, except perhaps to suggest that you exchange some of your philosophy books for some mr. men volumes (no disrespect to the mr. men ).

From that same logic, there are aspects of Christianity that are equally dangerous then. Remember Waco, for example?

which brings us neatly to your second 'point', that to make an argument that 'islam' is more dangerous than 'christianity' you have to narrow it down so much it becomes meaningless, why? because you say so of course! your argument only holds water if you're the one that does the narrowing and sets the limits, but it all falls down here, because your limits are wrong.

i think you could make the argument that islam is more of a threat than christianity to the whole world at the present time. but i'm well up for a bit of narrowing down, so i think that islam is more of a threat to the west, its societies, its values, and its people at the present time (this of course, includes the UK). if you want to argue differently then go ahead (good luck btw), but if you think that's too 'narrow' or whatever, then don't bother.

finally when i say that islam is more of a threat, i don't just mean the bombers, i mean also the 6% of british muslims who 'fully supported' the bombing of london, that's 100,000 people not only condoning but supporting terrorism and bloody murder.

When it is a 'Christian' regime raining bombs on Iraq and in control of the situation it is different. Christians have very little to feel oppressed about...I wonder what it would be like if it was the other way around. I can understand why these moslems are really, really pissed off. Doesn't mean I support the tactics of bombing innocent civilians...

[Sikander]

Who the hell is raining bombs on Iraq? Certainly not Christians. More Muslims are killed by Muslims every year than are killed by Christians, and more Christians are killed by Muslims every year than are killed by Christians. The real problem is that almost every Arab Muslim with even slight awareness of the world around themselves realizes that their culture is pathetic. The same is even more true for those who look up to the Arabs (like some in Pakistan), though they are less likely to blow themselves up in an infantile rage about it.

[Solly]

I can understand why these moslems [sic] are really, really pissed off

Yes, after all, we only housed them, and kept them on benefit for decades until they decided to attack us for our errors.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


Yes, after all, we only housed them, and kept them on benefit for decades until they decided to attack us for our errors.

Aaahh, the voice of the people yodels its clarion call !!!

[Solly]

Working in Holbeck, Leeds, less than a mile from where the bombers came from, I think I can tell you the mood of the people better than some ignorant philosopher who never sees humanity.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Working in Holbeck, Leeds, less than a mile from where the bombers came from, I think I can tell you the mood of the people better than some ignorant philosopher who never sees humanity.

Yes, random geographical location has a way of imparting intelligence and knowledge, doesn't it ?

"We need a moral philosophy in which the concept of love, so rarely mentioned now by philosophers, can once again be made central."

Iris Murdoch

I'm sure you agree. Or are you sure you're not stuck up here too, without a clue ?

[Datajack Franit]

Yes, random geographical location has a way of imparting intelligence and knowledge, doesn't it ?

I think direct experience is slightly more important than pure cultural verbosity molly

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit


I think direct experience is slightly more important than pure cultural verbosity molly

Wtf is 'cultural verbosity' ?


And what does P.A. allegedly have direct experience of, exactly ?

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Working in Holbeck, Leeds, less than a mile from where the bombers came from, I think I can tell you the mood of the people better than some ignorant philosopher who never sees humanity.

Which people?

[Solly]

People I speak to at work and socially, the Yorkshire Post, local radio, even nationall press.

[Datajack Franit]

Wtf is 'cultural verbosity' ?

We are discussing about two issues: islamists in western societies and people of muslim religion supporting terrorism acts. Knowing more about flemish weavers or chinese sailors has hardly any kind or relevance to this topic. Or do you just want someone to tell you how good your history knowledge is?


And about this

And what does P.A. allegedly have direct experience of, exactly ?

He lives there! And his opinion isn't less important just because he's not a polish farmer living in the middle-ages

[Whaleboy]

whaleboy, your whole argument is based, not on actually arguing the point (because doing that would just make you look even more silly...), but rather on attacking the validity of the question. your argument rests on two things, firstly that you can't talk about 'islam' or 'muslims' as one group.

Well I fail to see how one can extract a meaninful answer from a meaningless question .

you are right that you cannot simply talk about 'muslims' or 'christians' as if they are one homogenous group, but then no one has said that you can...

You contradict yourself here, since you are attempting to establish that Islam is a more dangerous religion, the only way you could do that if you wish to compare Islam and Christianity as two groups is to say that they represent the sum of their constituent parts... in other words if Islam has a greater quantity/quality of fundamentalists than Christianity then Islam is more dangerous.

Is it something you could plug into a computer and come out with a graph? Yes of course. Per capita you may be more likely to be killed by a Muslim than a Christian (depending upon geographic location which leads to my following point). The problem is that, as I have been saying all along, it's a useless, meaningless determination... indeed a harmful one for the simple reason that as you expand a definition you do so at the expense of contextual relevance. It's like saying you're more likely to be killed by someone with brown eyes than blue.

It is entirely different to an analysis of the causes that makes a group, a cult, an organisation, an individual etc dangerous in the first place. That *is* useful, both tactically and sociologically. Of course then, after you work that out, you lose the mud-slinging value of "dangerous muslims" and "beware the exploding shi'ites".

which brings us neatly to your second 'point', that to make an argument that 'islam' is more dangerous than 'christianity' you have to narrow it down so much it becomes meaningless, why? because you say so of course! your argument only holds water if you're the one that does the narrowing and sets the limits, but it all falls down here, because your limits are wrong.

To establish which religion is more dangerous you have to narrow it down to the individual acts and thus individual terrorists, and like I said above, in doing so you are unable to prescribe the wider group as more dangerous.

i think that islam is more of a threat to the west, its societies, its values, and its people at the present time (this of course, includes the UK). if you want to argue differently then go ahead (good luck btw), but if you think that's too 'narrow' or whatever, then don't bother.

I would agree if you narrow down further to fundamentalist/terroristic Islam. With regards to Islam proper, you're not qualified to talk about it until you've experienced Northampton's battle-hardened taxi drivers .

finally when i say that islam is more of a threat, i don't just mean the bombers, i mean also the 6% of british muslims who 'fully supported' the bombing of london, that's 100,000 people not only condoning but supporting terrorism and bloody murder.

So again what you're suggesting is that, despite having quoted you saying "you cannot simply talk about 'muslims' or 'christians' as if they are one homogenous group, but then no one has said that you can...", you really are taking a percentage and using them to create a more dangerous average result for the whole.

For the third time then, in order to make such a claim, you need to show why Islam proscribes terror, why Islam is a sufficient condition to greater terrorism. If you can't, then logically you must default to my method of analysing further and dropping the wider group of "Islam".

Yes, after all, we only housed them, and kept them on benefit for decades until they decided to attack us for our errors.

You housed them? You'd have had them thrown into the North Sea if you could... indeed it's ignorant, maladjusted ****** like you that are part of the problem, because the likes of you can be used to cause ****** like them!

Working in Holbeck, Leeds, less than a mile from where the bombers came from, I think I can tell you the mood of the people better than some ignorant philosopher who never sees humanity.

Ah yes, Park Avenue, the voice of the people once more. Burberry and a large collection of anal beads hidden under the floorboards...

"Without racism, Great Britain would merely be Britain"

/Drunk Churchillian drawl

And what does P.A. allegedly have direct experience of, exactly ?

Getting gang-raped by brownies most likely...