|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 29, 2024 9:55:50 GMT
If you point out that Muslims are proportionally more likely to be perpetrators of a sex crime than other sections of the community is that prejudice? If you point out that Muslims are proportionally more likely to be unemployed and on welfare than other sections of the community is that prejudice? This islamophobia thingy is all a bit vague.. It’s prejudice if you claim it when it’s not true or relevant. The main perpetrators of sex crime are middle aged men, but to make such a claim implies its significant among us, when it isn't. So the answer to your question is context. Of course the fact that the perpetrators of sex crime are middle aged men is significant . How can it not be? Just it is significant that many of the grooming/ rape gangs were Muslims of Pakistani origin and it’s significant that the police were wary of pursuing them because they were of that religion and origin . |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 29, 2024 10:21:26 GMT
You should let them know, I don't think the Labour know this themselves. Funny, they only literally did a u-turn on this:
However, the fact that they have been the prime contender to push this insane law (the fact that they were going to try and implement it), which undermines EVERYTHING that my civilisation stands for, I would advise extreme vigilance.
Thankfully, unless Starmer takes in Warsi her time trying to subjegate the country has come to an end. She can't quit twice, but I'm sure there are more Islamists still working to turn us into slaves.
Do you support them?
The ones trying to turn us into slaves? I'm not aware of any, but no I wouldn't support them. Have you a link to Labour party members saying they wish to turn the British public into slaves of Islam? That would be an interesting read! |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 29, 2024 10:23:26 GMT
It’s prejudice if you claim it when it’s not true or relevant. The main perpetrators of sex crime are middle aged men, but to make such a claim implies its significant among us, when it isn't. So the answer to your question is context. Of course the fact that the perpetrators of sex crime are middle aged men is significant . How can it not be? Just it is significant that many of the grooming/ rape gangs were Muslims of Pakistani origin and it’s significant that the police were wary of pursuing them because they were of that religion and origin . But significant to what end? In what context? That we should dislike middle aged men, be wary of letting them into the country? As I say context is critical. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 29, 2024 10:33:48 GMT
Of course the fact that the perpetrators of sex crime are middle aged men is significant . How can it not be? Just it is significant that many of the grooming/ rape gangs were Muslims of Pakistani origin and it’s significant that the police were wary of pursuing them because they were of that religion and origin . But significant to what end? In what context? That we should dislike middle aged men, be wary of letting them into the country? As I say context is critical. Middle aged men cannot help being middle aged men so we should note that ….and we do . Children tend to be more suspicious of middle aged men than say elderly ladies . So that’s already happening. Followers of a dark age misogynistic, war like cult of a paedophile prophet can help it . If we imported millions of followers of a Hitler and Jimmy Saville appreciation cult and excused it on the grounds that most of them don’t follow it to the letter , lefties would be up in arms . For strange reason they seem to be cheer leaders of a similar cult . |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Sept 29, 2024 11:05:06 GMT
Bollocks. You don't get to decide if I leave or not. All The Best Of course not, I would rather you didn't leave. I would however like you to, raise your game. Feelings mutual. Regurgitating Daily Heil Alt-Right bullshit is beneath you really; you used to be a half decent debater, must be coming here that dragged you down to their level. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Sept 29, 2024 11:24:04 GMT
Whose? The Forums? The Hosting Companies? Both of which are trumped by The Law. All The Best The T&C's you agreed to when you signed up here. 17. YOUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEFAMATORY COMMENTS
You agree and understand that you may be held legally responsible for damages suffered by other Website members or third-parties as the result of Your remarks, information, feedback or other content posted or made available on the Website that is deemed defamatory or otherwise legally actionable. Under the Federal Communications Decency Act of 1996, ProBoards is not legally responsible, nor can it be held liable for damages of any kind, arising out of or in connection to any defamatory or otherwise legally actionable remarks, information, feedback or other content posted or made available on the Website.Are you, however, aware that a Company's T&Cs can NOT trump the law. Doesn't matter what the T&Cs say, doesn't matter it we were forced to agree to them to post here, what matters is the law. For the record, the Federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 is American Legislation; it does not apply in outside of America. Pro-Boards has a legal duty to ensure the boards they host not only comply with US Law (as they are a US based company) but also the relevant laws that apply where those boards are Viewed / Used / Interacted with. So, if something is illegal here in the UK, UK based Members posting such can be held liable for that because they are in the UK and the Board is being viewed in the UK. Germany-based, Pro-Boards-hosted boards will have to comply with the much stricter laws Germany has about discussing Hitler / Nazism for example. What pretty much every company on the planet does not want us to know is that their T&Cs are essentially useless - the Law is what matters, it protects Our and Their Rights & Liabilities. In the case of Internet Forums and other Social Medial Platforms there are multi-jurisdictional laws that apply - the laws of the Hosting Country, the laws of Contributors' Countries, and the laws of the End User's / Viewer's Countries. If something is illegal in any of those jurisdictions then both the Forum Owner and the Forum Host can potentially be held criminally liable for that content. Social Media has been an Information Wild West for some time, and people engaged in all kinds of nefarious and illegal activities have used it for such; but that is, very much rightly, being changed. From a legal standpoint - allowing racist and religious bigotry to thrive here is no different to allowing someone to post child porn here; both are illegal, both should be stamped out, both should be reported to the relevant authorities, and those who enable either should be held accountable. The law is finally getting to a point where that is happening. I am an ardent champion of Freedom Of Speech; but if you want to exercise that right you have to be grown-up enough to understand and live with the consequences of doing so. Freedom Of Speech has NEVER meant Freedom From Consequences... All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Sept 29, 2024 12:09:27 GMT
Funny, they only literally did a u-turn on this:
However, the fact that they have been the prime contender to push this insane law (the fact that they were going to try and implement it), which undermines EVERYTHING that my civilisation stands for, I would advise extreme vigilance.
Thankfully, unless Starmer takes in Warsi her time trying to subjegate the country has come to an end. She can't quit twice, but I'm sure there are more Islamists still working to turn us into slaves.
Do you support them?
The ones trying to turn us into slaves? I'm not aware of any, but no I wouldn't support them. Have you a link to Labour party members saying they wish to turn the British public into slaves of Islam? That would be an interesting read! Well, that's the problem. It's so vague, which Pacifico hinted at, that I doubt even Labour would know where it would end up. After all, even questioning the Taliban will be treated as Islamophobia by many hardline Islamists. It's just a matter of time. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 29, 2024 12:27:03 GMT
The T&C's you agreed to when you signed up here. 17. YOUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEFAMATORY COMMENTS
You agree and understand that you may be held legally responsible for damages suffered by other Website members or third-parties as the result of Your remarks, information, feedback or other content posted or made available on the Website that is deemed defamatory or otherwise legally actionable. Under the Federal Communications Decency Act of 1996, ProBoards is not legally responsible, nor can it be held liable for damages of any kind, arising out of or in connection to any defamatory or otherwise legally actionable remarks, information, feedback or other content posted or made available on the Website.Are you, however, aware that a Company's T&Cs can NOT trump the law. Doesn't matter what the T&Cs say, doesn't matter it we were forced to agree to them to post here, what matters is the law. For the record, the Federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 is American Legislation; it does not apply in outside of America. Pro-Boards has a legal duty to ensure the boards they host not only comply with US Law (as they are a US based company) but also the relevant laws that apply where those boards are Viewed / Used / Interacted with. So, if something is illegal here in the UK, UK based Members posting such can be held liable for that because they are in the UK and the Board is being viewed in the UK. Germany-based, Pro-Boards-hosted boards will have to comply with the much stricter laws Germany has about discussing Hitler / Nazism for example. What pretty much every company on the planet does not want us to know is that their T&Cs are essentially useless - the Law is what matters, it protects Our and Their Rights & Liabilities. In the case of Internet Forums and other Social Medial Platforms there are multi-jurisdictional laws that apply - the laws of the Hosting Country, the laws of Contributors' Countries, and the laws of the End User's / Viewer's Countries. If something is illegal in any of those jurisdictions then both the Forum Owner and the Forum Host can potentially be held criminally liable for that content. Social Media has been an Information Wild West for some time, and people engaged in all kinds of nefarious and illegal activities have used it for such; but that is, very much rightly, being changed. From a legal standpoint - allowing racist and religious bigotry to thrive here is no different to allowing someone to post child porn here; both are illegal, both should be stamped out, both should be reported to the relevant authorities, and those who enable either should be held accountable. The law is finally getting to a point where that is happening. I am an ardent champion of Freedom Of Speech; but if you want to exercise that right you have to be grown-up enough to understand and live with the consequences of doing so. Freedom Of Speech has NEVER meant Freedom From Consequences... All The Best Put a sock in it ffs. 😀 |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 29, 2024 12:41:43 GMT
But significant to what end? In what context? That we should dislike middle aged men, be wary of letting them into the country? As I say context is critical. Middle aged men cannot help being middle aged men so we should note that ….and we do . Children tend to be more suspicious of middle aged men than say elderly ladies . So that’s already happening. Followers of a dark age misogynistic, war like cult of a paedophile prophet can help it . If we imported millions of followers of a Hitler and Jimmy Saville appreciation cult and excused it on the grounds that most of them don’t follow it to the letter , lefties would be up in arms . For strange reason they seem to be cheer leaders of a similar cult . Mohammed was not a Paedophile, that old Chestnut is long dead. Neither can you assume that the acts of the grooming gangs had anything to do with their religious beliefs and certainly not what Muslims in general believe. Other than that you make my point for me. Stating that middle aged men are most likely to be the perpetrators of sex crime is meaningless without context. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 29, 2024 12:52:28 GMT
Middle aged men cannot help being middle aged men so we should note that ….and we do . Children tend to be more suspicious of middle aged men than say elderly ladies . So that’s already happening. Followers of a dark age misogynistic, war like cult of a paedophile prophet can help it . If we imported millions of followers of a Hitler and Jimmy Saville appreciation cult and excused it on the grounds that most of them don’t follow it to the letter , lefties would be up in arms . For strange reason they seem to be cheer leaders of a similar cult . Mohammed was not a Paedophile, that old Chestnut is long dead. Neither can you assume that the acts of the grooming gangs had anything to do with their religious beliefs and certainly not what Muslims in general believe. Other than that you make my point for me. Stating that middle aged men are most likely to be the perpetrators of sex crime is meaningless without context. Of course he was and of course you can . Do you believe a member of the Klu Kux Klan can be untouched by its core beliefs. How am I making your arguments for you be refuting them ? The only people who make the statement (that middle aged men are most likely to be perpetrators of sex crime) meaningless are lefties ( like you ) who claim men can identify ( and consequently be defined) as women. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2024 13:35:44 GMT
The Oxford English dictionary puts it thus.... dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force: This thread is riven with right wingers imbued with it. If you point out that Muslims are proportionally more likely to be perpetrators of a sex crime than other sections of the community is that prejudice? If you point out that Muslims are proportionally more likely to be unemployed and on welfare than other sections of the community is that prejudice? This islamophobia thingy is all a bit vague.. It is always going to be possible to use genuine but highly selective statistics to support any form of bigotry. If I were to point out that proportionally, white people were more likely to become serial killers than black people would that be prejudice? Or that poor white people were more likely to use food banks than Muslims? Would that be prejudiced? Of course not. Measured facts in isolation do not constitute prejudice. It is how selected facts are selectively employed for what purposes that tends to give the game away.. I mean, the fact that proportionally more Muslims are unemployed and on welfare proves what exactly beyond the fact measured? If you were to extrapolate from such a fact a cause based upon prejudiced assumptions, eg that Muslims are temperamentally inclined to be lazy bastards and sponge off the rest of us, without measured evidence that they are so included in their thinking you would be guilty of using a selected fact to support a prejudice. And with the obvious alternative explanation also something that could be inferred, ie that they find it harder to gain employment because of prejudice against them. That too would be an assumption. But as such serves to demonstrate that different assumptions can be drawn from the same fact, and that in this way selected facts are open to abuse. Selective facts can also flow in the opposite direction, eg that non-Muslim women are proportionally far more likely to both have children out of wedlock and be single parents than Muslim women. Does that prove that Muslims are better than the rest of us? No it doesnt. But you are an intelligent man fully capable of having worked all this out for yourself. So I am wondering what your agenda can be other than justifying or explaining away Islamophobia |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2024 13:48:21 GMT
The Oxford English dictionary puts it thus.... dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force: This thread is riven with right wingers imbued with it. This is what the Labour party stand for today? To not only make it illegal not to like Islam, but also associate not liking Islam with a mental disorder? Blimey, I know the old Communist regimes were mental, but damn, I can't see many people insisting that this should become law.
Still, at least there's one less Islamist in the Tory party.
As for not liking Wahhabism, ISIS, al-Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood, which are all political forces (Islamism) then I guess most of the country will be going to prison.
Firstly, I am not a member of or supporter of the current Labour Party. And I did not vote Labour in the general election. So on what basis you assume me to be a spokesman for Labour escapes me, unless you have imagined it. But even I know that the nonsense you have spouted is not at all what Labour stands for, least not in this universe. The parallel one you seem to inhabit is not one I wish to visit. Intelligent debate is only really possible when dealing in fact, not fiction. Far from being in the pockets of Muslims, Labour is losing Muslim voters hand over fist for being too pro-Israel. Hidden amongst all their gains was the fact that they lost 5 seats to pro-Gaza Independents, largely voted for by Muslims in opposition to Labour. But I am guessing that didn't actually happen in your universe. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Sept 29, 2024 14:29:28 GMT
The Oxford English dictionary puts it thus.... dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force: This thread is riven with right wingers imbued with it. 1) If you point out that Muslims are proportionally more likely to be perpetrators of a sex crime than other sections of the community is that prejudice? 2) If you point out that Muslims are proportionally more likely to be unemployed and on welfare than other sections of the community is that prejudice? This islamophobia thingy is all a bit vague.. 1) Are they though? Because according the latest official figures, published under the Tories, there is no evidence to support that. 2) Again, are they? Do you have supporting evidence? Or are you just parroting bigoted tropes? All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 29, 2024 14:37:02 GMT
Mohammed was not a Paedophile, that old Chestnut is long dead. Neither can you assume that the acts of the grooming gangs had anything to do with their religious beliefs and certainly not what Muslims in general believe. Other than that you make my point for me. Stating that middle aged men are most likely to be the perpetrators of sex crime is meaningless without context. Of course he was and of course you can . Do you believe a member of the Klu Kux Klan can be untouched by its core beliefs. How am I making your arguments for you be refuting them ? The only people who make the statement (that middle aged men are most likely to be perpetrators of sex crime) meaningless are lefties ( like you ) who claim men can identify ( and consequently be defined) as women. No he wasn't End of. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 29, 2024 14:45:41 GMT
Of course he was and of course you can . Do you believe a member of the Klu Kux Klan can be untouched by its core beliefs. How am I making your arguments for you be refuting them ? The only people who make the statement (that middle aged men are most likely to be perpetrators of sex crime) meaningless are lefties ( like you ) who claim men can identify ( and consequently be defined) as women. No he wasn't End of. Yes he was. End of . See I can do that … |
|
