|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On August 10 2017 06:42 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:41 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:39 bardtown wrote:On August 10 2017 06:32 KwarK wrote:
Okay, so the word "branch" is a protrusion of wood grown by off of the "trunk", which is the central column of a tree. In this case it is being used as a metaphor. Where there is one concept or organization (the tree in this metaphor) that has split into many different directions, some of which split even further along the line, those can be referred to as branches.
So I said that some of the branches of the tree of Islam had problems with women.
You attempted to refute this by saying that if two or more branches had problems with women then clearly it couldn't just be a single branch that is the problem.
While that point is correct, it's also exactly what I already told you when I said that some of the branches had problems with women.
You then attempted to insist that if someone of the branches had problems with women then the entire tree must have problems with women.
I then attempted to explain that that's not how it works but unfortunately I struggled because you're apparently unfamiliar with the way that the word branches can be used as a metaphor in the English language. Which is sad. But that's comprehensive schools for you. If a tree keeps producing branches and those branches keep producing peaches, you might be forgiven for supposing that it is a peach tree. Okay, so you're still struggling with the fact that it's a metaphor. So the branches are in different directions. That's how the metaphor works. What you've done is said "okay, but imagine all the branches end up in the same place and produce the same fruit, what then?" Which is the point, because in this example we have people from many different nationalities, likely many different denominations of Islam, and yet all part of the same child abuse gang. There's only one thing they have in common.
There's multiple things actually, so I'd quite like an explicit assertion at this point.
|
The article we talk about doesn´t mention religion at all, the common feature between them are immigrant communities, born in the UK and Newcastle. Why are we talking about islam and it´s branches at all? Are there any other sources on this particular crime? Or is there a source that would make one assume that (sex) criminals in the UK are probably Musim? (other than bigotry)
|
On August 10 2017 06:45 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:42 bardtown wrote:On August 10 2017 06:41 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:39 bardtown wrote:On August 10 2017 06:32 KwarK wrote:
Okay, so the word "branch" is a protrusion of wood grown by off of the "trunk", which is the central column of a tree. In this case it is being used as a metaphor. Where there is one concept or organization (the tree in this metaphor) that has split into many different directions, some of which split even further along the line, those can be referred to as branches.
So I said that some of the branches of the tree of Islam had problems with women.
You attempted to refute this by saying that if two or more branches had problems with women then clearly it couldn't just be a single branch that is the problem.
While that point is correct, it's also exactly what I already told you when I said that some of the branches had problems with women.
You then attempted to insist that if someone of the branches had problems with women then the entire tree must have problems with women.
I then attempted to explain that that's not how it works but unfortunately I struggled because you're apparently unfamiliar with the way that the word branches can be used as a metaphor in the English language. Which is sad. But that's comprehensive schools for you. If a tree keeps producing branches and those branches keep producing peaches, you might be forgiven for supposing that it is a peach tree. Okay, so you're still struggling with the fact that it's a metaphor. So the branches are in different directions. That's how the metaphor works. What you've done is said "okay, but imagine all the branches end up in the same place and produce the same fruit, what then?" Which is the point, because in this example we have people from many different nationalities, likely many different denominations of Islam, and yet all part of the same child abuse gang. There's only one thing they have in common. There's multiple things actually, so I'd quite like an explicit assertion at this point.
What are you not understanding? This is a gang of Muslim men who have been abusing children in an English city, just like it was a gang of Muslim men who abused children in Rotherham and a gang of Muslim men who abused children in Oxfordshire. It's a safe bet that there is one for every major city in the country.
On August 10 2017 06:48 Unentschieden wrote:
The article we talk about doesn´t mention religion at all, the common feature between them are immigrant communities, born in the UK and Newcastle. Why are we talking about islam and it´s branches at all? Are there any other sources on this particular crime? Or is there a source that would make one assume that (sex) criminals in the UK are probably Musim? (other than bigotry)
Mainstream media refuse to state the religion of the perpetrators for fear of being accused of racism/xenophobia - which, ironically, was the fear which allowed the abuse in Rotherham to continue for so long.
|
I'm confused, is this supposed to be some form of convoluted No True Scotsman to try to dismiss all the parts of Islam that have problems?
|
On August 10 2017 06:48 Unentschieden wrote:
The article we talk about doesn´t mention religion at all, the common feature between them are immigrant communities, born in the UK and Newcastle. Why are we talking about islam and it´s branches at all? Are there any other sources on this particular crime? Or is there a source that would make one assume that (sex) criminals in the UK are probably Musim? (other than bigotry)
The Rotherham organized child sex ring, for one. Germany's sexual assaults last year (and the migrant crisis in general). The religion's history with the treatment of women. Those kind of things.
On August 10 2017 06:48 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:48 Unentschieden wrote:
The article we talk about doesn´t mention religion at all, the common feature between them are immigrant communities, born in the UK and Newcastle. Why are we talking about islam and it´s branches at all? Are there any other sources on this particular crime? Or is there a source that would make one assume that (sex) criminals in the UK are probably Musim? (other than bigotry) Mainstream media refuse to state the religion of the perpetrators for fear of being accused of racism/xenophobia - which, ironically, was the fear which allowed the abuse in Rotherham to continue for so long.
It's kind of a self perpetuating cycle. I'll even give the thread that officials have a justified fear of getting blamed for any backlash against Muslim communities if they even note in passing a shared group identity. If it's getting hushed up, they're probably not Anglicans with names like Archie and Hugh. It almost overdoes it noting the irony when the irony causes such harm and pain.
|
On August 10 2017 06:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:48 Unentschieden wrote:
The article we talk about doesn´t mention religion at all, the common feature between them are immigrant communities, born in the UK and Newcastle. Why are we talking about islam and it´s branches at all? Are there any other sources on this particular crime? Or is there a source that would make one assume that (sex) criminals in the UK are probably Musim? (other than bigotry) The Rotherham organized child sex ring, for one. Germany's sexual assaults last year (and the migrant crisis in general). The religion's history with the treatment of women. Those kind of things.
Or just look at their names.
|
On August 10 2017 06:52 LegalLord wrote:
I'm confused, is this supposed to be some form of convoluted No True Scotsman to try to dismiss all the parts of Islam that have problems?
No. Because no one is saying that they are not Islamic. Child sex trafficking happens all over the world and Islam has no special claim to it.
|
United States44301 Posts
On August 10 2017 06:52 LegalLord wrote:
I'm confused, is this supposed to be some form of convoluted No True Scotsman to try to dismiss all the parts of Islam that have problems?
I said multiple branches of Islam have problems. Bardtown tried to insist that was wrong because it wasn't just one branch that had problems. Then he tried to insist that if multiple branches have problems then surely all branches have problems. I've been trying to familiarize him with the concept that some branches might have problems and some branches don't and that the differences are part of why they're not the same branch. He's struggling a lot with it though.
|
On August 10 2017 06:52 LegalLord wrote:
I'm confused, is this supposed to be some form of convoluted No True Scotsman to try to dismiss all the parts of Islam that have problems?
It's like saying Oliver (or whatever it is now) is the most popular British baby name. Well, technically correct because Muhammad, Mohammed, Mohammad, Mohamed (etc) are counted independently. Would you include variations to call Mohammed the most popular name, or dismiss them to call Oliver? Would you note a pattern, even if it has unsettling implications AND some people will take it too far, in the service of calling a spade a spade?
|
United States44301 Posts
Why shouldn't Mohammed be the most popular baby name? It's less trashy than Nevaeh. I'd imagine quite a lot of people in Northern Ireland probably aren't fond of the name Oliver either. Whether they should be combined into one I'll leave up to whoever is compiling statistics on baby names. If they count them together and it's the most popular name, so be it. It'll make it easy to get the attention of brown people. One name fits all.
|
On August 10 2017 06:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:52 LegalLord wrote:
I'm confused, is this supposed to be some form of convoluted No True Scotsman to try to dismiss all the parts of Islam that have problems? No. Because no one is saying that they are not Islamic. Child sex trafficking happens all over the world and Islam has no special claim to it.
I would still honestly like some proof that they are actually islamic. We are going down this whole long argument and it would be pretty silly if in the end it turned out that they just bunched together because they were living in the same apartment building or something like that.
I am in general not a big fan of religion, but that is usually not what these arguments are about. They are usually about "The other religion is bad, while mine is not. If people belonging to the other religion do bad stuff, it is because of the religion. If people of my religion do bad stuff, it is despite their religion."
Examples: "Islamic terrorists ---> islam is the problem"
"Islamic child molesters: Islam is the problem"
" Christian child soldiers and torturers Nothing to do with christianity, what a silly idea!"
And that kind of shitty argument leads to people defending the other side. Not necessarily because they think that that religion is amazing, but mostly because the attacks themselves are just bad.
|
I I think about calling a spade a spade every day. But then I remember that are really sensitive about some words and don't like being called them, even though they expose ideas that are clearly in line with those words.
|
On August 10 2017 07:10 Plansix wrote:
I I think about calling a spade a spade every day. But then I remember that are really sensitive about some words and don't like being called them, even though they expose ideas that are clearly in line with those words.
And then, as I saw a couple of pages ago, you conclude those who practice what you only think about can't see past skin and xenophobia, but might some day.
|
On August 10 2017 07:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 07:10 Plansix wrote:
I I think about calling a spade a spade every day. But then I remember that are really sensitive about some words and don't like being called them, even though they expose ideas that are clearly in line with those words. And then, as I saw a couple of pages ago, you conclude those who practice what you only think about can't see past skin and xenophobia, but might some day.
Sometimes we get to live out our dreams during our waking hours. Sometimes we get to be as honest with other as we try to be with ourselves.
|
On August 10 2017 07:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:52 LegalLord wrote:
I'm confused, is this supposed to be some form of convoluted No True Scotsman to try to dismiss all the parts of Islam that have problems? I said multiple branches of Islam have problems. Bardtown tried to insist that was wrong because it wasn't just one branch that had problems. Then he tried to insist that if multiple branches have problems then surely all branches have problems. I've been trying to familiarize him with the concept that some branches might have problems and some branches don't and that the differences are part of why they're not the same branch. He's struggling a lot with it though.
I think you've fallen out of your metaphorical tree and landed on your head. That's not an accurate representation of what I was saying at any given point. Maybe public schooling gives people an overinflated opinion of themselves.
P.S. if you're not asking your spade for its preferred pronouns you're the worst kind of bigot. It's 2017.
|
On August 10 2017 07:09 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:55 Plansix wrote:On August 10 2017 06:52 LegalLord wrote:
I'm confused, is this supposed to be some form of convoluted No True Scotsman to try to dismiss all the parts of Islam that have problems? No. Because no one is saying that they are not Islamic. Child sex trafficking happens all over the world and Islam has no special claim to it. I would still honestly like some proof that they are actually islamic. We are going down this whole long argument and it would be pretty silly if in the end it turned out that they just bunched together because they were living in the same apartment building or something like that. I am in general not a big fan of religion, but that is usually not what these arguments are about. They are usually about "the other religion is bad, while mine is not. If people belonging to the other religion do bad stuff, it is because of the religion. If people of my religion do bad stuff, it is despite their religion." Examples: "Islamic terrorists ---> islam is the problem" "Islamic child molesters: Islam is the problem" " Christian child soldiers and torturers Nothing to do with christianity, what a silly idea!" And that kind of shitty argument leads to people defending the other side. Not necessarily because they think that that religion is amazing, but mostly because the attacks themselves are just bad.
You're the only one making it about "This religion vs this religion". If you want to talk about Christianity's problems with homophobia than ago ahead and start a discussion somewhere, i'll be right there with you. This is about a child grooming case which is all too common in the UK, and it always turns out to be very similar suspects.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/09/newcastle-sex-grooming-network-operation-shelter
Nashir Uddin, Taherul Alam, Mohammed Hassan Ali, Mohammed Azram, Monjur Choudhury, Saiful Islam. Second row: Abdulhamid Minoyee, Jahanger Zaman, Mohibur Rahman, Prabhat Nelli, Nadeem Aslam, Eisa Mousavi. Third row: Habibur Rahim, Badrul Hussain, Carolann Gallon, Abdul Sabe, Redwan Siddquee, Yassar Hussain Photograph: Northumbria Police/PA
As mentioned earlier the police don't tend to release the persons religion, the same would go with a white guy and Christianity, i guess it wouldn't make much sense. But these are the names of the criminals, or you could be disingenuous and pretend these could be atheists etc. Serously though this shouldn't even be a diccussion weather they are Muslim or not, please look into the history of UK's child grooming cases, and then look at this one.
|
United States44301 Posts
I went back and checked and it really was your point.
I said multiple branches had issues.
You asked how my claim that multiple branches had issues would stand up to a hypothetical world in which they were from multiple denominations.
I explained that multiple branches actually presumes that there could be multiple denominations.
You said that if multiple branches have problems then surely everything on the tree must have problems.
I explained that that's not how branches work.
Do I need to quote the specific posts for you?
|
On August 10 2017 07:18 KwarK wrote:
I went back and checked and it really was your point.
I said multiple branches had issues.
You asked how my claim that multiple branches had issues would stand up to a hypothetical world in which they were from multiple denominations.
I explained that multiple branches actually presumes that there could be multiple denominations.
You said that if multiple branches have problems then surely everything on the tree must have problems.
I explained that that's not how branches work.
Do I need to quote the specific posts for you?
I will explain again. I am not saying that all the branches have problems; I am suggesting that if many branches have the same problems the likelihood is that they originate in the trunk. I am all in favour of those moderate and reformed branches which do not feature these flaws, but I do not think it is coincidental that many branches derived from the same trunk express the same phenotype. And the trunk in this metaphor would be the Islamic texts and traditions in the broadest possible sense.
|
United States44301 Posts
On August 10 2017 07:23 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 07:18 KwarK wrote:
I went back and checked and it really was your point.
I said multiple branches had issues.
You asked how my claim that multiple branches had issues would stand up to a hypothetical world in which they were from multiple denominations.
I explained that multiple branches actually presumes that there could be multiple denominations.
You said that if multiple branches have problems then surely everything on the tree must have problems.
I explained that that's not how branches work.
Do I need to quote the specific posts for you? I will explain again. I am not saying that all the branches have problems; I am suggesting that if many branches have the same problems the likelihood is that they originate in the trunk. I am all in favour of those moderate and reformed branches which do not feature these flaws, but I do not think it is coincidental that many branches derived from the same trunk express the same phenotype.
If you're in favour of the moderate and reformed branches then why are you trying to condemn the whole tree, and not just the diseased branches?
As for your "it's not coincidental", you might as well say "if we ignore all the evidence to the contrary a clear pattern emerges".
Islam is a religion founded by a 7th Century Arabic warlord. Of course the 7th Century warlord shit is going to be incompatible with modern society and should be rejected. But what exactly is the purpose of your argument here? If you're aware that there are different branches that don't have the same issues as the ones you're talking about then why are you trying to condemn the trunk?
|
On August 10 2017 07:23 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 07:18 KwarK wrote:
I went back and checked and it really was your point.
I said multiple branches had issues.
You asked how my claim that multiple branches had issues would stand up to a hypothetical world in which they were from multiple denominations.
I explained that multiple branches actually presumes that there could be multiple denominations.
You said that if multiple branches have problems then surely everything on the tree must have problems.
I explained that that's not how branches work.
Do I need to quote the specific posts for you? I will explain again. I am not saying that all the branches have problems; I am suggesting that if many branches have the same problems the likelihood is that they originate in the trunk. I am all in favour of those moderate and reformed branches which do not feature these flaws, but I do not think it is coincidental that many branches derived from the same trunk express the same phenotype. And the trunk in this metaphor would be the Islamic texts and traditions in the broadest possible sense.
I think after this, the problem exists at refusing to trace effects to root causes if said root causes represent an ideological or religious problem for the speaker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
