|
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 07:18 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 07:09 Simberto wrote: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-shelterNashir 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/PAAs 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.
The problem is that i have to guess what bardtowns point actually is, because he can't be bothered to actually make any argument, instead he just does these cute "Well look at that" things. My guess was that bardtown wants to make the argument that islam is at fault, which is then based on a "my religion vs their religion" thing. It would be a lot easier if people actually made their own arguments instead of having people guess what they want to say.
|
I´d like to point out that the argument seems to have shifted to names rather than religion. A middle eastern name suggest being muslim which suggests being a sex criminal. At some point you stop reading between the lines and start making stuff up.
|
On August 10 2017 07:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 07:23 bardtown wrote: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?
I'm pointing out that the origins of the problem are in the trunk. I don't have a solution to propose. I don't know if any solution is possible. We might at least try to ensure that the stem of British Islam is not coming from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan and that it is not represented in the media by extremists at the Muslim Council of Britain, etc.
On August 10 2017 07:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 07:23 bardtown wrote: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.
Yeah. I don't think Muslim leaders could ever accept that the root of the problem is in their perfect holy book, and even if they could they would not be convinced to change a perfect text written by God himself just to prevent 'misinterpretations'. It's insoluble.
|
United States43977 Posts
Salafism should not be viewed as a trunk of Islam. It's actually very recent. The family of the king of Jordan, the Hashemite dynasty, were pretty much the big shots a century ago after the dissolution of the last Caliphate. Educated at British public schools, Oxbridge and Sandhurst, imperially backed local monarchs. Things were good. An awful lot of the current drama can be traced to a company called Standard Oil giving a guy named Saud infinite money. Britain and a France would have known better, killed him, and paid the new king we put in his place in guns for the oil. But the US was new to imperialism. Sauds fucked the region over completely.
We're an accident of history away from the Middle East looking a lot like Jordan does. Sauds and the existence of Israel are at the root of most of the problems. (Not saying to destroy Israel or anything before someone puts those words in my mouth)
|
On August 10 2017 08:22 KwarK wrote:
destroy Israel
Did someone say nazi mods?
|
On August 10 2017 06:16 bardtown wrote:
And if all those charged are not from the same denomination of Islam, which seems very likely, where does that leave your point?
So when white people make up a pedophile network, it's because they're filthy perverts, but when brown people do it, it's because of their religion.
Or maybe there are just sick fucks all over the place.
|
On August 10 2017 08:27 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:16 bardtown wrote:
And if all those charged are not from the same denomination of Islam, which seems very likely, where does that leave your point? So when white people make up a pedophile network, it's because they're filthy perverts, but when brown people do it, it's because of their religion. Or maybe there are just sick fucks all over the place.
We've just been through this but do feel free to keep talking about how the prevalence of Muslim gangs abusing children is pure coincidence. Try not to swallow too much sand in the process.
On August 10 2017 08:22 KwarK wrote:
Salafism should not be viewed as a trunk of Islam. It's actually very recent. The family of the king of Jordan, the Hashemite dynasty, were pretty much the big shots a century ago after the dissolution of the last Caliphate. Educated at British public schools, Oxbridge and Sandhurst, imperially backed local monarchs. Things were good. An awful lot of the current drama can be traced to a company called Standard Oil giving a guy named Saud infinite money. Britain and a France would have known better, killed him, and paid the new king we put in his place in guns for the oil. But the US was new to imperialism. Sauds fucked the region over completely.
We're an accident of history away from the Middle East looking a lot like Jordan does. Sauds and the existence of Israel are at the root of most of the problems. (Not saying to destroy Israel or anything before someone puts those words in my mouth)
I wasn't suggesting that it is. I am saying that if we want the British strain of Islam to be moderate then it should not inherit from extreme schools abroad, which it currently does because that's where all the money comes from. Not that there's an easy solution to that, either.
|
Brexit them all away, only righteous Caucasians remain, enjoy utopia.
|
Nvm, bardtown got banned. So no point in calling out his unsubstantiated posts.
|
On August 10 2017 07:48 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 07:30 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 07:23 bardtown wrote: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? I'm pointing out that the origins of the problem are in the trunk. I don't have a solution to propose. I don't know if any solution is possible. We might at least try to ensure that the stem of British Islam is not coming from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan and that it is not represented in the media by extremists at the Muslim Council of Britain, etc. Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 07:33 Danglars wrote:On August 10 2017 07:23 bardtown wrote: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. Yeah. I don't think Muslim leaders could ever accept that the root of the problem is in their perfect holy book, and even if they could they would not be convinced to change a perfect text written by God himself just to prevent 'misinterpretations'. It's insoluble.
On August 10 2017 08:52 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 08:27 Acrofales wrote:On August 10 2017 06:16 bardtown wrote:
And if all those charged are not from the same denomination of Islam, which seems very likely, where does that leave your point? So when white people make up a pedophile network, it's because they're filthy perverts, but when brown people do it, it's because of their religion. Or maybe there are just sick fucks all over the place. We've just been through this but do feel free to keep talking about how the prevalence of Muslim gangs abusing children is pure coincidence. Try not to swallow too much sand in the process. Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 08:22 KwarK wrote:
Salafism should not be viewed as a trunk of Islam. It's actually very recent. The family of the king of Jordan, the Hashemite dynasty, were pretty much the big shots a century ago after the dissolution of the last Caliphate. Educated at British public schools, Oxbridge and Sandhurst, imperially backed local monarchs. Things were good. An awful lot of the current drama can be traced to a company called Standard Oil giving a guy named Saud infinite money. Britain and a France would have known better, killed him, and paid the new king we put in his place in guns for the oil. But the US was new to imperialism. Sauds fucked the region over completely.
We're an accident of history away from the Middle East looking a lot like Jordan does. Sauds and the existence of Israel are at the root of most of the problems. (Not saying to destroy Israel or anything before someone puts those words in my mouth) I wasn't suggesting that it is. I am saying that if we want the British strain of Islam to be moderate then it should not inherit from extreme schools abroad, which it currently does because that's where all the money comes from. Not that there's an easy solution to that, either.
Well, bardtown is damn right on all counts. Follow the money, observe enough bad branches to follow it back to the trunk. If that's too difficult for the media, political forums, or this internet forum, then I think the proof is in the pudding. You want moderate Islam, show extremist Islam (and whatever you want to call Rotterdam child sex ring) that you can address it like mature adults. I think the opposite, and trendy approach, will generate more Trumps and Brexits or buoy that mindset to significant political force. It's all like Galileo and the Catholic Church for the new era if you ask me.
|
United States43977 Posts
Rotterdam not actually in the U.K.
|
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-bill-uk-citizens-right-government-break-law-sue-high-court-eu-human-a7887506.html
British citizens will no longer be able to sue the Government for breaking the law after Brexit, under far-reaching new plans being drawn up in Whitehall.
A clause in the Brexit bill set to be debated next month means Britons could lose the ability to seek compensation or damages over issues including workers' rights, environmental policy and business regulation.
The Government can currently be sued under The European Court of Justice's 1991 Francovich ruling. It stipulates that a member state is liable if an individual or business has been damaged because of a failure by the country to implement EU law.
Its almost as if what everyone was saying about the tories using Brexit to engineer an authoritarian society and removing all transparency laws was true after all.
|
Sadly not surprised. I thought they were already unaccountable enough, more disappointed that the feeling is that even more immunity from the law is required. Had an amusing 404 error clicking the link as well :<
|
United States43977 Posts
On August 11 2017 20:44 Jockmcplop wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-bill-uk-citizens-right-government-break-law-sue-high-court-eu-human-a7887506.htmlShow nested quote +British citizens will no longer be able to sue the Government for breaking the law after Brexit, under far-reaching new plans being drawn up in Whitehall.
A clause in the Brexit bill set to be debated next month means Britons could lose the ability to seek compensation or damages over issues including workers' rights, environmental policy and business regulation.
The Government can currently be sued under The European Court of Justice's 1991 Francovich ruling. It stipulates that a member state is liable if an individual or business has been damaged because of a failure by the country to implement EU law. Its almost as if what everyone was saying about the tories using Brexit to engineer an authoritarian society and removing all transparency laws was true after all.
?
Because before we had the ECJ Britain was an authoritarian totalitarian hellscape that only the ECJ could restrain?
There will be issues resulting from Brexit (which is why I opposed it) but I don't anticipate the failure of law and order to be one of them.
|
On August 11 2017 12:38 KwarK wrote:
Rotterdam not actually in the U.K.
Rotherham.
|
On August 11 2017 20:44 Jockmcplop wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-bill-uk-citizens-right-government-break-law-sue-high-court-eu-human-a7887506.htmlShow nested quote +British citizens will no longer be able to sue the Government for breaking the law after Brexit, under far-reaching new plans being drawn up in Whitehall.
A clause in the Brexit bill set to be debated next month means Britons could lose the ability to seek compensation or damages over issues including workers' rights, environmental policy and business regulation.
The Government can currently be sued under The European Court of Justice's 1991 Francovich ruling. It stipulates that a member state is liable if an individual or business has been damaged because of a failure by the country to implement EU law. Its almost as if what everyone was saying about the tories using Brexit to engineer an authoritarian society and removing all transparency laws was true after all.
I wasn't aware that the U.K. desperately needed benevolent foreign assemblies to keep it from becoming an authoritarian society.
|
On August 12 2017 01:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 20:44 Jockmcplop wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-bill-uk-citizens-right-government-break-law-sue-high-court-eu-human-a7887506.htmlBritish citizens will no longer be able to sue the Government for breaking the law after Brexit, under far-reaching new plans being drawn up in Whitehall.
A clause in the Brexit bill set to be debated next month means Britons could lose the ability to seek compensation or damages over issues including workers' rights, environmental policy and business regulation.
The Government can currently be sued under The European Court of Justice's 1991 Francovich ruling. It stipulates that a member state is liable if an individual or business has been damaged because of a failure by the country to implement EU law. Its almost as if what everyone was saying about the tories using Brexit to engineer an authoritarian society and removing all transparency laws was true after all. I wasn't aware that the U.K. desperately needed benevolent foreign assemblies to keep it from becoming an authoritarian society.
Well many people in the UK are aware of that because we have seen Theresa May's policy record.
|
United States43977 Posts
On August 12 2017 01:02 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 01:01 Danglars wrote:On August 11 2017 20:44 Jockmcplop wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-bill-uk-citizens-right-government-break-law-sue-high-court-eu-human-a7887506.htmlBritish citizens will no longer be able to sue the Government for breaking the law after Brexit, under far-reaching new plans being drawn up in Whitehall.
A clause in the Brexit bill set to be debated next month means Britons could lose the ability to seek compensation or damages over issues including workers' rights, environmental policy and business regulation.
The Government can currently be sued under The European Court of Justice's 1991 Francovich ruling. It stipulates that a member state is liable if an individual or business has been damaged because of a failure by the country to implement EU law. Its almost as if what everyone was saying about the tories using Brexit to engineer an authoritarian society and removing all transparency laws was true after all. I wasn't aware that the U.K. desperately needed benevolent foreign assemblies to keep it from becoming an authoritarian society. Well many people in the UK are aware of that because we have seen Theresa May's policy record.
A surprisingly fair point. Stay the hell away from my squirting porn Theresa.
I'll concede that point.
|
On August 12 2017 01:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 01:02 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 12 2017 01:01 Danglars wrote:On August 11 2017 20:44 Jockmcplop wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-bill-uk-citizens-right-government-break-law-sue-high-court-eu-human-a7887506.htmlBritish citizens will no longer be able to sue the Government for breaking the law after Brexit, under far-reaching new plans being drawn up in Whitehall.
A clause in the Brexit bill set to be debated next month means Britons could lose the ability to seek compensation or damages over issues including workers' rights, environmental policy and business regulation.
The Government can currently be sued under The European Court of Justice's 1991 Francovich ruling. It stipulates that a member state is liable if an individual or business has been damaged because of a failure by the country to implement EU law. Its almost as if what everyone was saying about the tories using Brexit to engineer an authoritarian society and removing all transparency laws was true after all. I wasn't aware that the U.K. desperately needed benevolent foreign assemblies to keep it from becoming an authoritarian society. Well many people in the UK are aware of that because we have seen Theresa May's policy record. A surprisingly fair point. Stay the hell away from my squirting porn Theresa. I'll concede that point.
This is what I meant. I don't really mean to say that we need the EU to avoid slipping into authoritarianism, but simply that it is preferable to giving May's tories carte blanche to remove all human rights legislation, privacy legislation, worker's rights and government accountability..
|
http://evolvepolitics.com/listen-historic-child-abuse-panel-member-i-silenced-theresa-mays-advisors-ensure-became-pm/
Speaking to talkRADIO, Sharon Evans, a former journalist and the founder of Dot Com Children’s Foundation, said that the panel were “promised the child abuse inquiry would be open”, but after a short while she saw that it was ‘so obvious that everything was about the control and suppression of information” and that the supposedly independent inquiry had absolutely “no independence’.
Ms Evans claimed that the contracts panel members were made to sign by the Home Office were used to stop them from speaking openly about “very serious allegations about very public figures” – allegations which she says were taken back to the inquiry leaders, but ‘nothing was being done about” them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
