 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Muslim prejudice
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 Jan 11 - 06:24 AM ""Why the completely irrational rage Lox?"" Why the irrational insistence upon repeating the same mantra multiple times in the belief that this will make it true eventually? Lox is right Keith, and what you see as irrational rage appears to me to be the natural frustration engendered by trying to insert a simple idea into a closed mind. You see the problem as a Muslim one, and trawl through the internet until you find two "politically correct" commentators who agree. Seizing on this "evidence", you declare your case proven. Not so mate. All you have proved is that there are two others who share your opinion, for that is all it amounts to. Lox produces facts, easily verifiable, that there are Romanian gangs, British gangs, and gangs of every other race and religion, involved in the same, or similar, activity. When such a gang is discovered and brought to justice, nobody should be surprised that it consists predominantly of members from the same ethnic background. For reasons best known to yourself and Akenaton, you choose to ignore all of this, and come to the unsupported conclusion that this is a Muslim problem. Looking at your argument, it presents a logical fallacy based upon your belief that, if Pakistani Muslims can't get together with girls from their own community (not entirely accurate in itself), they have no other recourse than to abduct and rape British girls between the ages of 11 and 16. By those criteria, in your opinion, every Muslim boy is potentially not only a rapist kidnapper, but a paedophile to boot. This concept is intrinsically ridiculous!! The idea that any randy youth has to resort to criminal offences to get laid is patently absurd. When I was a youth back in the uptight fifties, one couldn't go near the "nice" girls on pain of dire punishment, but then, and even more so now, there were always plenty of willing girls, and we sowed our wild oats without trouble, and we weren't in the least interested in anybody's kid sister. There are wall to wall available girls in every town centre, and the idea that Muslim lads haven't noticed that is frankly laughable. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 28 Jan 11 - 06:18 AM No one should dismiss informed opinion. Cryer and Straw are well informed. I still think the suggestion is a reasonable one. Why don't you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 28 Jan 11 - 05:42 AM You're still moaning mate. There's no irrational rage, there is well supported and thoroughly argued rebuttal of these outrageous slanders. Pay attention - its all in my last two posts. "You posted about this issue two days before I did." Yes I was already discrediting this line of slander before you came along to stick up for it. "it sounded reasonable to me." i.e you thought it was legitimate and supportable. Should I deduce from your use of the past tense that you don't anymore? If so then I think that there is nothing left to discuss. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 28 Jan 11 - 05:36 AM Threads drift Lox. You posted about this issue two days before I did. The idea came from two respected, knowledgeable people with impeccable Left Wing credentials, and it sounded reasonable to me. It was relevant to the discussion so I posted about it. Why the completely irrational rage Lox? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 28 Jan 11 - 05:24 AM Short version of previous post. Keith post weak excuse for prejudice against Moslems and defend them, Keith get held accountable and get blown out of water. You savvy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 28 Jan 11 - 05:13 AM "The idea is not mine remember." "I though it reasonable, and posted it here when the subject came up." You're attempting that same old weak tired tactic Keith of posting an opinion, no other opinion, and then defending it to the hilt, but simultaneously abdicating any responsibility for it. Sorry mate, that lie doesn't even pretend to be believable. You think Straw and Cryers comments are reasonable - i.e. you see no reason to disagree. ie, you think they are legitimate supportable views. That IS your opinion. "you have no alternative ideas." The subject of the thread isn't "paedophile Gangs" The subject is "Muslim Prejudice". Is prejudice against Moslems an issue? Is it understandable? Why? What reasons? ... ... well one is that "they" traffick young white girls ... (this is presumably after they've come over here and taken our jobs) Well actually, this has nothing to do with Islam, or Pakistani culture, and there is no evidence or reliable argument that supports that accusation. Wait - hang on - Keith thinks there is ... and he will fight to the bitter end to try to prove it, even when the very weak evidence he has provided is shown not to give any weight to the views he thinks are "reasonable". "Your position is that you are sure it is wrong, but you don't know why," Yes I know exactly why - and I have stated so - Because there is no evidence or solid reasoning to support it. Ths view is as evidentially supported and logically defendable as the notion that Nick Griffin is your secret gay lover. Mayube its the culture of secret gay relationships with BNP leaders that is the reason for you posting all this crap. If I apply your rules, then you should now provide evdence to show that this is not true ... Straw and Cryer have made a value judgement about Islamic/Pakistani culture, this needs to be supported evidentially or logically or it stands as Slander. Slander against a race/culture is called PREJUDICE Keith. So whats my point? My point is that this "example" of why it might understandable that there is prejudice against Moslems is flawed as it is not the product of Pakistani culture, but is a cross cultural problem. In other words, This excuse to be suspicious of Moslems doesn't wash and those who use it need to find another sound reason or admit that they are merely trying to bolster up a racist idea. In addition, I note that your attempts to support these views, or to respond to my actual points, or the evidence I have provided which shows that this is not an exclusively Pakistani issue, have been completely ignored and that all you have left is this whiney complaint that you are being picked on. Well tough mate - I don't give a shit. If you stick up for posonous ideas, then you put yourself in the firing line of criticism of poisonous ideas. You've been so well and truly pasted now Keith that it would be cruel to carry this on any further. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Richard Bridge Date: 28 Jan 11 - 04:12 AM Funny, either the post eater is at it again or I have been modded.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 28 Jan 11 - 02:03 AM Lox, The idea is not mine remember. It is the belief of two intelligent people who have spent years working with and for their large local BP communities. I though it reasonable, and posted it here when the subject came up. What is so wrong with that Lox? Your position is that you are sure it is wrong, but you don't know why, and you have no alternative ideas. OK Lox, but that is a non contribution. What is the point of posting it? So many times! With such anger. It is not rational behaviour. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Alan Whittle Date: 27 Jan 11 - 09:55 PM I don't think the sexual frustation of adolescents is to blame. Many of the men these girls were procured for were mature and middle aged men. This is just plain old non denominational bloody evil. There are always perversions of religion - the priests in Frank McCourts childhood who slept with his mother for a few slices of bread. There are always people who use their religion as an excuse to be an utter bastard. The headmasters who physically abused Roald Dahl. If they didn't have that as an excuse, they'd have something else. Everybody knows when they're committing a monstrous evil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 27 Jan 11 - 07:21 PM "You say I have offered no evidence (except the plausibility of the idea), but you have offered no evidence against either." This is illogical bullshit. If you make a claim, you need to back it up with evidence, or at the very least a clear line of reasoning that stands the test of scrutiny. You have provided neither, and until you do, your hypothesis stands as nothing more than meaningless fiction. It is up to you to support your own hypothesis. Evidence makes a hypothesis plausible. Suggesting that the onus is on me to find evidence to disprove it is ridiculous and just another in your list of ridiculous logical fallacies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 27 Jan 11 - 05:17 PM STOP PRESS In todays METRO it was reported that another two men were convicted for trafficking in sex slaves. It seems they were the leaders of an organized Gang. Then in the Evening Standard, there was a story about a young Malaysian woman who was drugged and gang raped by fellow students on an English language course. The men who did it were thankfully caught and convicted. The Gangters who trafficked sex slaves were Romanian. No Mention of the race or ethnicity of the rest of the Gang, but I'm guessing probably Romanian. The Men who Gang raped the Malaysian Woman were Russian. I wonder if it was Islamic culture that drove them to their crimes? Or is it only that when British Pakistanis do it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,999 Date: 27 Jan 11 - 02:38 PM Keith has never, is not nor will ever be a racist. Those of you who intend to find proof of racism in any post he`s ever made on Mudcat will be one long time looking. Many of you are doing nothing BUT exhibiting rude, crude and foolish behaviour--and, imo, it`s time ya stopped. Keith, there`s no point peeing into the wind, my friend. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 27 Jan 11 - 02:22 PM You will have to help me Greg. As you say, I am an idiot. I simply do not understand how any rational person could read my last post to Lox as racist. Indeed , not being a racist or a bigot, I believe I have never made such a post. I can tell that my presence here annoys you Greg. Here's the deal. You find a post of mine with a racist or bigoted remark, and I will leave Mudcat for good. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Greg F. Date: 27 Jan 11 - 02:02 PM Yes, but then there's no NEED for me to "explain why" - your postings speak for themselves, and there's no way I could improve on them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 27 Jan 11 - 10:27 AM But you don't have time to explain why. Not helpful. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 27 Jan 11 - 05:57 AM My hypothesis is that the absence of girls available for sexual relationships in the BP culture may be linked to their young men being over represented in this type of crime. That does not make me racist or culturalist. I will concede at once that they are under represented in every other type of non terrorist crime. You say I have offered no evidence (except the plausibility of the idea), but you have offered no evidence against either. You have also not offered any explanation of your own for the fact that "the gangs in this case are predominantly made up of Pakistanis" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 27 Jan 11 - 04:37 AM Keith, I was away from my computer. I clarified a few times that the issue is with the idea, not the man who propagates it. The idea that Pakistani culture is to blame for these Organized Gangs activities any more or less than it is responsible for the crimes of their White Gang-mates, is both racist and unsupported. You have provided NO argument to support this idea, nor any evidence. Instead you have provided a list of disingenuous mealy mouthed apologies for Jack Straw and Anne Cryers assertion that the Pakistani community and their elders are responsible for the crimes committed and that they could have prevented them from happening. You are wasting my time. Good bye. MtheGM as usual dribbles into his bib with glee after regurgitating the same dull quip as usual, I just hope that with this level of over excitement his colostomy bag is properly attached. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 27 Jan 11 - 02:19 AM So, you can not discuss this without propping yourself up with the crutch of abuse. You certainly fell flat when you tried to challenge things I had actually said, rather than things I never had, or would, say. A pity. You accepted that " the gangs in this case are predominantly made up of Pakistanis." I think we were coming close to a non racist explanation of that fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 26 Jan 11 - 03:13 PM Lox, I would like to answer and discuss your last post. I am hesitating because all you have done so far is to try to use my posts against me. You are determined to confirm your belief that I am a racist bigot. It is no good asking you to change your opinion of me, but can you keep it to yourself and just debate as if I actually was a decent human being? Or shall we just leave it here? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: MGM·Lion Date: 26 Jan 11 - 02:25 PM Oh, a most valuable post, Greg F ~~ so long on cogent argument & short on abusive name-calling ··· NOT ,,, "I'm out of this thread as there is nothing left for me to add." ~ Lox at 0354 That resolve didn't last long, did it, Smoked·Salmon mate? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Greg F. Date: 26 Jan 11 - 02:13 PM Query: Who gives a flying fu$k WHAT Keith thinks? He's shown himself over and over again to be a bigoted racist jackass with a pretty tenuous grip on reality. Move on. This pig ain't ever gonna learn to sing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 26 Jan 11 - 02:02 PM "Keith thinks that , "Under such a regime, some young men of any ethnic group would be tempted to go and get sex from where they can."" Of course Keith, and you mean to insinuate no connection whatsoever between that point and THE SUBJECT BEING DISCUSSED ie abduction and rape. Its just a coincidence that you mentioned it in the middle of that discussion, and it wasn't intended to cast any light on the subject matter. I'm not sure whether to advise you to stop taking happy pills or to start ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 26 Jan 11 - 05:44 AM "Keith thinks that an 'alleged' "absence" of courtship in "pakistani culture" is a reasonable explanation for the existence of an orhanizde crime gang who abduct and abuse underage girls." No. Keith thinks that , "Under such a regime, some young men of any ethnic group would be tempted to go and get sex from where they can." A reasonable and rational suggestion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 26 Jan 11 - 05:31 AM ""The remark quoted has been carelessly written. I apologise and withdraw it. The quotation above of course, has absolutely no bearing on this thread."" Its bearing on this thread is both obvious and valid, inasmuch as it pertains to the agenda of the poster and lays bare his prejudice in relation to the subject of various minorities. In the thread in which it originally appeared, it was too vigorously proposed and defended to have been a carelessly written error. The two conclusions from this reflect upon both the integrity and the veracity of the poster, and supply a very clear indication of the credibility or otherwise of his utterances. Denials of prejudice, bigotry, and malicious intent somehow fail to ring true. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 26 Jan 11 - 03:54 AM Ake, Thank you for that retraction. When I first ebngaged with you on here I argued that you were not thinkng your ideas through properly. When you stuck up relentlessly for points that were similarly carelesssly written, I drew the conclusion that you intended to deliberately mislead. My hand is always ready to extend to the person who is able to acknowledge that their remarks may have been careless. For me it is not about the person, but the idea. And regardless of who the person is, I will confront poisonous ideas head on. I suspect that it took some guts to write your apology above, and I respect that. I don't know if this is grounds to be optimistic or not that you will take more care and be more considerate in future, but who knows eh? I'm out of this thread as there is nothing left for me to add. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 26 Jan 11 - 03:49 AM "That is a perfectly reasonable and rational link to suggest." Just to recap, Keith thinks that an 'alleged' "absence" of courtship in "pakistani culture" is a reasonable explanation for the existence of an orhanizde crime gang who abduct and abuse underage girls. Well of course ... now I can see that it is me who is ranting hysterically. Your Hypothesis Keith is so shot to pieces that that is all that is left of it. "Of course she raised the issue with Pakistani councillors and other representatives, and with influential people like local Immams." You are dodging the point keith - Anne Cryer argues that if "community leaders" had talked to the "community" about respecting white teenage girls (because obviously without this 'talking to', the community would never have thought of it themselves), then that could have prevented organized gangs from abducting teenagers, trafficking them and subjecting them to rape and other abuse. Maybe some kind of research in this field would be useful, but until we actually kknow anything about the causes and effects of sexual taboo Islam style, then we are none of us qualified to assert anything that might suggest an entire culture is at risk of turning to rape and abduction unless its "leaders" step in to make sure they don't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 26 Jan 11 - 03:19 AM Extraordinary Lox! Those two innocuous, anodyne statements are the strongest things you can put up to justify your almost hysterical ranting against me! I did say,"let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for." But, the only aspect of the culture I ever referred to was the absence of courtship activities, and you chose not to deny the truth of that yesterday. There is nothing wrong with saying that. I also said, "Under such a regime, some young men of any ethnic group would be tempted to go and get sex from where they can." That is a perfectly reasonable and rational link to suggest. What is wrong with you? Anne Cryer. She speaks from knowledge and experience. Anyone would need a reason to believe you over her. She has spent years working with the Pakistani community she represents, and is respected and supported by them. They voted for her. She also had first hand experience with victims and their families. (Likewise Jack Straw, and the police officers.) Community leaders? Of course she raised the issue with Pakistani councillors and other representatives, and with influential people like local Immams. She would have a working relationship with them and would be failing in her responsibilities not to raise such an issue with them. What is wrong with you that you can not be rational about all this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: akenaton Date: 26 Jan 11 - 03:02 AM I do believe that some homosexuals have a propensity towards post pubescent boys. But not to paedophilia. The remark quoted has been carelessly written. I apologise and withdraw it. The quotation above of course, has absolutely no bearing on this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 25 Jan 11 - 08:44 PM So where were we, Oh yes ... ... I tell the truth and Ake tells lies. I think that just about finishes Ake off in this debate at least. ... and Keith needs to clarify whether he agrees with Anne Cryer that "community leaders" could have prevented these crimes form occurring ... ... and he need to clarify how he can hold the culture of a community responsible without holding the community - and its leaders responsible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 25 Jan 11 - 08:19 PM Ake says: "Sigh.....Another lie to refute. I have never at any time said or believed that homosexuals had any particular propensity to paedophilia" Oh really? So its refuting lies you want is it? Well how do you like these apples ... *snip* Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' activists jailed for paedophilia, From: akenaton - PM Date: 07 Nov 09 - 03:39 AM "My contention is that men who indulge in the homosexual practice, have a propensity towards paedophelia, the figures available and my observations throughout my life....lead me to that contention" *snip* Indeed Ake - Lie refuted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 25 Jan 11 - 07:33 PM "let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for." Theres the culture being expected to take responsibility. "Under such a regime, some young men of any ethnic group would be tempted to go and get sex from where they can." There's the parents/community being held responsible, and in response to my criticism of Anne cryers Opinion, and coice of solution, you stated that you "believe her" over me. You accept her opinion as informed testimony. In the process you endorse her assertion that the solution is not a practical policing matter, but a cultural matter that could have been and could still be solved by "community leaders" talking to the "community" That Keith is her opinion. Sticking up for it makes you sympathetic to it. Do you agree with her? I would clarify that to blame a culture without blaming the people is non sensical as the culture only exists because the people live by it. To understand the culture you must observe the people. To blame the culture is to blame the people. This is simple Logic. My arguments do very robustly stand the test of scrutiny Keith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: akenaton Date: 25 Jan 11 - 07:21 PM Sigh.....Another lie to refute. I have never at any time said or believed that homosexuals had any particular propensity to paedophilia The priests who abused, were attracted to adolescent boys. Paedophiles target pre-pubescent children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 25 Jan 11 - 07:11 PM Lox, over and over I quote you verbatim, and refute what you said. In return, over and over, you make up things that I never have said, and never would say, and reply to that! Now I challenge you. Quote something of mine verbatim, and then say what is wrong with it. I do not think that you can Lox. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 25 Jan 11 - 06:56 PM As soon as I see the words "Muslims are......" or "Christians are......." (substitute the group of your choice), I know that the odds are a thousand to one on the rest of the sentence being a fairly even mixture of lies, half truths, and malicious prejudice. When said sentence is posted by one or two specific members of this forum, those odds jump to a million to one. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 25 Jan 11 - 06:36 PM There is much from that thread that you have conveniently omitted Ake, But rather than dig all that up, I shall point and laugh at this little gem. "The difference is that in this current thread we are discussing the rape and trafficking of immature young girls....emotional infants." Not funny in itself, but when you consider the hours that Ake has spent arguing that Paedophilia is a curiously Gay Problem ... ... I guess its a Gay problem and a Moslem Problem now ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Dorothy Parshall Date: 25 Jan 11 - 06:34 PM I really do not have the energy to read al this. I just wondered if the wonderful Canadian program, The Little Mosque on the Prairie has been noted. I just saw it for the fisrt time this week and already I think it is amazing and delightful. Amazing that it seems to be produced by a bunch of people with unpronounceable names. Delightful because it depicts real people being real people - except the brown ones are more interesting and delightful than the white ones. And it is a highly rated, much-loved program. I understand there is some flak from south of the border. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,999 Date: 25 Jan 11 - 06:24 PM Native people (Indians, aka First Nations and other names) make up about 4% of Canada`s population. They also account for 24% of admissions to provincial and federal jails. Talk about prejudice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: akenaton Date: 25 Jan 11 - 06:23 PM Just to nail the latest lie being promoted on this thread, that I "think that rape victims are asking for it" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: BS: Some rape victims should take blame From: akenaton - PM Date: 16 Feb 10 - 05:50 PM Further up the thread Royston says. "We're talking about whether or not women who have been raped, should carry some blame for what happened to them." Well actually we are NOT discussing that at all. We are discussing whether SOME rape victims should take partial responsibility for their safety. All the stuff about dress is a bit of a red herring, as is all the verbiage about family friends, husbands ect. These are not the cases we are discussing "you think some women deserve to be raped" How many times have I read that on this thread. Nobody said anyone DESERVES to be raped The crime is inexcusible....I said that in my first post. What prompted me to post at all, was the case in the newspapers of a young lady who met a young man in a pub...both got sloshed, went back to his flat, got into bed and had sex. The two parted company, and the next day, the young lady went to the police an complained of rape. Now that girl of course did not deserve to be raped...if she was raped, but in my opinion acted in a very irresponsible manner. This thread is a very good example of "liberalism" in action, isolate the two or three who deviate slightly from the prescribed form of words, then bully and misrepresent what they say until they fall silent and give way. That is not being liberal, a true liberal will read a post and if he disagrees with part of it will try to come to an understanding with the other party, not simply abuse them, as has been done with Lizzie here. I dont agree with all she says, but her opinions are not "vile" or "hateful", she just sees things slightly differently from the rest. Jeddy....nice to see your name again my dear, I've missed your question, but I'll go back and try to find it...Ake The difference is that in this current thread we are discussing the rape and trafficking of immature young girls....emotional infants. No sense of responsibility can be laid at their feet. Apologists!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 25 Jan 11 - 06:12 PM ""So. It was simply coincidence that 50 out of the 53 convicted were muslim.......you are the daftie if you believe that."" So our resident sneer on legs can't get his head round the notion that the members of any gang will have similarity of race, simply because like cleaves to like, but you don't hear the same screeching rant from him when the police round up a bunch of white paedophiles, do you? Ake's agenda is crystal clear, yet he accuses everybody else of double standards. His posting record shows a predilection for kicking the crap out of any minority which ruffles the calm surface of his closed mind. Homosexuals, gypsies and travellers, Muslims, liberals (if only he understood what a liberal is) all come in for more than a fair share of his bile and malice. He is the problem, not the solution, and as long as people like him continue to spread their poison these problems will persist. A criminal is a criminal first, and a Christian, Muslim, or any other grouping second. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,999 Date: 25 Jan 11 - 05:56 PM I once asked a buddy from Alabama why there seemed to be so much racial hatred in that state. He replied, `Because the good guys don`t make the news.` |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 25 Jan 11 - 05:50 PM ""But their silence on these issues is deafening."" Neither accurate nor relevant Brian. It isn't so much a case of ""their silence on these issues is deafening."", more a case of "Their words on the subject don't sell newspapers so they don't get printed". There are many Muslims saying plenty, but what they say doesn't put any money in Rupert Murdoch's pocket. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 25 Jan 11 - 05:03 PM Finally, Dave, In Leicester, just to clarify, there are several Catchment areas, or Ghettos, which can be characterized roughly by their religious/racial make up. There are some mixed areas. There are poor white areas ie most of the people who live there are white and poor. There is a large Moslem area, where most people are moslem. The common perceived identity of most people in white areas is that they are white. The common perceived identity of people in Moslem areas is that they are Moslem. In the white areas there is a small range of religious diversity. There are catholics, protestants, aetheists, Jews etc. In the Moslem Area there is a small range of racial diversity - there are Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Somalis, Algerians etc That is why it makes more sense to describe them as "white" or "Moslem" areas, as the common denominator in one srea is ethnicity, while in the other it is religion. Thus, I have not mixed my metaphors, so much as referred to a demographic fact. And it is true that when white people come into Moslem areas in Leicester, they do not get abused and threatened as much as Moslems do when they go into white areas. I hope that clarifies the matter for you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 25 Jan 11 - 04:54 PM Keith, you have argued that British Pakistani culture is responsible for young Pakistani boys seeking out white girls. In the context of a discussion about crimes against white girls, that reads to me as an explanation for these crimes. In addition, you have stated that you agree with Anne Cryer, who argued that if "community leaders" had stepped in and talked to parents about teaching their kids not to see white girls as sluts, then these crimes could have been prevented. In other words, she makes "community leaders", and by proxy, "communities", responsible for the crimes committed by Pakistani Criminals. Perhaps you have decided that you disagree with her on that point now. In short, you have defended the idea that the British Pakistani Culture, Community and Community Leaders should take responsibility for these crimes. That idea, regardless of who agrees with it or stands against it, is an idea that has as its premise the assumption that these crimes are representative of British-Pakistani attitudes of white girls as distinct from anyone elses. This is an unsupportable accusation. It is definig the causes of these crimes on racial/religious grounds. It is a racist idea. Reject it or support it as you will, but don't pretend it is a supportable hypothesis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 25 Jan 11 - 04:29 PM In addition, I would add that on each occasion that I have taken Ake to task, it has been in response to slander and abuse that he has heaped on other mudcat members, not least those who aren't there to defend themselves. Ake's poisonous contribution on such threads serves as little more than verbal pollution |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 25 Jan 11 - 04:26 PM Ake, "On several occasions he has attributed statements to me which were in fact posted by others" Bollocks, I know exactly where to find the posts I attribute to you and have provided links to them before. "There is no doubt in my mind that the supression of free thought and free speech as practiced by people of Lox's ilk" Exactly where has your freedom of thought or speech been supressed by me in any way? Nowhere. Excepot in one respect - each time I encounter you I expose the truth about your position as easily as a chils opens a birthday present. And like the torn wrapping paper I rip your pathetic unsubstantiated and facile arguments to shreds. If you post racist ideas on a public forum, then you can expect someone to confront you. Sad case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 25 Jan 11 - 04:20 PM Dave, I refer you to my previous response to the same point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: akenaton Date: 25 Jan 11 - 04:03 PM Keith I'm sorry you have been landed with this. I do not respond to Lox, as I have found him to be abusive and I fear, slightly disturbed. On several occasions he has attributed statements to me which were in fact posted by others....when this was pointed out to him, he had not the guts to apologise, or even express any regret. Consequently I let him know that I had no interest in debating with a moral coward.....yet he follows me from thread to thread, like some demented stalker. There is no doubt in my mind that the supression of free thought and free speech as practiced by people of Lox's ilk, represents an ideology even more insidious and dangerous, than that of all of the overtly racist maniacs put together. Viva Freedom! Viva Liberty! Viva Justice! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Dave the Gnome Date: 25 Jan 11 - 03:57 PM Almost consecutives posts by Lox... I can tell you that it is better to be white in a moslem area that moslem in a white area. Who likes satire? You can't make stuff like this up can you? Irony in action... :-) Not having a go, Lox. You just appeal to my sense of the outrageous!! Sterotyping moslems as non-white is exacly what the bigots want, I am afraid. Whether it is your experience or not is neither here nor there. Once you start to see people of a certain race being of a certain religion or vice-versca you may as well subscribe to the idea that all Irish are drunks and all the Jews are money-lenders! Surely it would be better to say "be non-moslem in a moslem are that moslem in a non-moslem one"? Makes more semse to me anyroads. I agree with your argument in principle btw - just think you would be better served by not mixing race and colour with religion. May as well say it's better to be a catholic in a bird sanctuary than a bird in St Peters. Although... DeG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 25 Jan 11 - 03:03 PM I admit to making a generalistion about B.P. culture. I said that girls are generally discouraged from engaging in courtship. Are you saying that is false? You neglected to say how my premise was flawed. If you did we could discuss it rationally. I think it quite sensible to use the opinions of people who know more about this that either of us. I have never made "wild generalisations about British Pakistanis." You can give no example can you. Because it is false. I am not desperate to defend anything. I thought I was just joining an interesting debate. Why can we not just discuss without accusations? I do not and have never "defended the idea that British Pakistani culture, and the British Pakistani Connunity, and its leaders, are to be held responsible for the crimes of a criminal gang?" Do you have to make stuff up about me because you have no answers? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 25 Jan 11 - 01:56 PM Actually Keith, legal, academic and political debate work this way. A hypothesis is suggested, and if it is to be taken seriously, it needs to be supported by a stroong reliable premise, and with a sound argument corroborated by evidence. As it stands, neither you nor anyone else has provided any of the above. You have provided us with a flawed premise, which is based on generalizations about British Pakistani culture. If your premise is flawed, then your argument has no basis. Though in fact even this is slightly disingenuous. Becaue the reality is that you didn't put up any theory, you came to defend someone elses theory. You have tried this in various different ways, such as putting words in my mouth and making wild generalizations about British Pakistanis, to name but two. On each of these attempts you have utterly failed to provide meaningful support for the theory you set out to defend. But still you persist. Why? Why are you so desperate to defend the idea that British Pakistani culture, and the British Pakistani Connunity, and its leaders, are to be held responsible for the crimes of a criminal gang? That is the question I would like answered. I can thank you for creating the need for me to clearly define how it is possible to determine when an idea or theory is motivated by racism and when it isn't. You can tell because the person who professes the racist idea persists in defending it even when it has been shown that their is neither evidential or rational argument to support it. So Keith, while maybe it isn't my place to say that you or Ake are Racists, I can state with no shadow of a doubt, that the idea he professed, and that you have come to the defence of, is a racist one. It is up to you whether or not you wish to be associated with it. |