Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to
and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head
Slartibartfast wrote: »
That’s a pretty firm assertion. Do you have any evidence? You know, which would counter the fact that the vast majority of the population just gets on with their lives, happily co-existing, happily sharing cultural influences.Switch on BBC news, there you go
Haven’t you contradicted yourself there?We're all equal at birth, but after we require different things. So no.
Are you saying that society cannot cope with this? Society itself is constructed from individuals living their lives in their own way. What I do is not the same as you, so why can’t we exist side by side?We can, but some can't. This isn't about the people who can live side by side. It's about people who refuse too. If they were being peaceful and not killing people, there wouldn't be an issue right?
No there isn’t. It’s a huge leap. Just as it is for any other religion.Islam clearly instructs people to behave this way
So basically your argument there falls in on itself. There are passages advocating violence in most religious texts, just as there are those who will use them as justification for vile acts. This isn’t a religious issue, it’s a mental health issue. Unless you are arguing that the only people capable of violence against another are religious extremists.Ask why they are doing it though, it's not mental health, it's the fact they're not happy.
We are, but I would question if the same could be said of you. Violence exists across the planet, it’s committed by people in the name of religion, in the name of politics (EDL, Bader-Meinhof for example).Yes people are violent everywhere all the time, for different reasons. But the reason we're discussing is the fact two Muslims, kill a british soldier. And to stop it happening again or worse, my opinion is that Islam/Muslims are too blame.
What you seem to be doing is singling out one religion and the small minority of that religion to back up some spurious assertions. You are suggesting that all Muslims are the problem here and that fits the definition you are trying to hide behind. You are prejudiced. At least have the integrity to admit it.I have the integrity to admit, that Muslims are the problem in this case, with these problems we're discussing, like i said if it were Christians, Catholics or Budists doing these things, then I'd be aiming my discontent at them. I'm not prejudiced against muslims, I'm prejudiced against the extremist that it will ALWAYS bring.
So, the question any statistician would ask is whether the group is actually representative of anything other than the people you mix with who are more likely to hold similar views to you.True, but then I would happily say that the sample of people i spoke to were completely random as such. As I never met these people, it was people through people, such as going to see a girlfriend, meeting her family, going to her families, friends house, and meeting their friends and discussing these problems. Although on this one i'll quite happily say, be ballsy and talk to people you know, and friends about things like this and what they actually think.
Ask the Tory Party conference delegates if they will vote Labour at the next election and you’ll find a pretty clear one sided answer. Ask the BNP about their views on race relations and I’m pretty certain that you’ll get a large volume of support for deportation. Ask my Facebook friends and you will get very short thrift for the policies of the EDL, BNP and indeed the Tory party.
As an aside, define “non-British”. That's funny, because i asked the Jobcentre the same thing a couple years ago.
Look at the language you used there – immigrants and “normal people”. But, of course, you aren’t racist in anyway.How would you like me to distinguish between the two parties i'm trying to talk about? Red and blue? Team 1 Team 2?
Because people want power. Before immigration was such a major part of British society we fought a civil war, there was the War of the Roses, we fought two World Wars and a huge number of smaller conflicts. None of that was because we were Muslim, was it?No? I don't quite understand what you mean.
And that is the issue. Not religion or immigration status. The disaffected are fighting back in any way they know how. People will hide behind any grouping their feel comfortable with, whether that is their religion (how many “everyone hates Christians” stories have you read?), their politics or as in your case simple racism. We saw it in the UK in the 30s and in the 60s/70s – yet in spite of your protestations we are still here.And people are still dying, does this not prove that maybe the 'correct' way, or the 'non racist way', is maybe not working perhaps?
That you use “they” just proves how irrational your “fear” actually is. Especially when you note that less than 5% of the population (as at 2011 census) are “Muslim”.Okay okay, you've got me there.
Slartibartfast wrote: »
You know that's three choices, right?
Arctic Roll wrote: »
And now we have the ever-insightful Shikari- a boy so stupid he takes his username from an Indian word whilst wanting to send Indians "home"- saying that anyone who questions any of this has been "brainwashed".
And these people are allowed to vote? Give me strength. I couldn't trust racists like Shikari or StephenTommyPaulAndrew to find their arse with both hands and a map.
Switch on BBC news, there you go
We can, but some can't. This isn't about the people who can live side by side. It's about people who refuse too. If they were being peaceful and not killing people, there wouldn't be an issue right?
Islam clearly instructs people to behave this way
Ask why they are doing it though, it's not mental health, it's the fact they're not happy.
Yes people are violent everywhere all the time, for different reasons. But the reason we're discussing is the fact two Muslims, kill a british soldier.
And to stop it happening again or worse, my opinion is that Islam/Muslims are too blame.
I'm not prejudiced against muslims, I'm prejudiced against the extremist that it will ALWAYS bring.
That's funny, because i asked the Jobcentre the same thing a couple years ago.
How would you like me to distinguish between the two parties i'm trying to talk about? Red and blue? Team 1 Team 2?
No? I don't quite understand what you mean.
And people are still dying, does this not prove that maybe the 'correct' way, or the 'non racist way', is maybe not working perhaps?
Infinite. wrote: »
Well done, that was an impressive word to platitude ratio.
G-Raffe wrote: »
All true though. Sometimes through the madness of trying to argue against racism/hatred/pain, platitudes is all some people will listen too.
Infinite. wrote: »
The madness of arguing against racism?
Infinite. wrote: »
They're still empty naive cliches that aim for profundity and hit patronising instead.
Posting them then signing off with 'the end' as if you've just solved racism is hilarious.