Utopia Talk / Politics / Migrant assault story fake

Arab Member	Wed Feb 15 18:04:49 So, turns out the mass sexual assault story in Germany on NYE was actually made up. http://www...year-allegations-a7581291.html
Arab Member	Wed Feb 15 18:05:54 "One of the purported victims of the alleged attack was not in Frankfurt at the time of the purported crime, they said." lol Western women....
obaminated Member	Wed Feb 15 19:06:33 This one time the Muslim refugee was framed.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Feb 16 02:44:04 I am willing to accept that at least 1 of the stories about mass sexual assault is fake. The most publicized one was in Cologne however not Frankfurt and there are videos of it.
Seb Member	Thu Feb 16 03:17:30 Nim: I do remember though that you were suggesting many were covered up by mam etc. Maybe simply is because a lot were simply fabricated?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Feb 16 04:14:53 In Sweden they were, it is well documented. Though I am not nor have I ever suggested there are sinister motives behind the covering up. It is simple, the fear and paranoia in Sweden over being called a "racist" or nazi has had some serious consequences in how both the Swedish police and media have been able to do their jobs.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Feb 16 04:22:33 Had Sweden been invaded by Germany, it would have been a very different country today, but It wasn't. They didn't really collaborate with them either, but still the Nazi taint hangs over Sweden in ways that does not seem to bother Norwegians and Danes.
Seb Member	Thu Feb 16 05:40:20 I see - my mistake then. But it does occur to me that the inability of MSM and police to evidence attacks falsely reported in the media lends itself well to a false narrative of "political correctness coverup". And this meme is a growing attempt to distort public perceptions while claiming the opposite. You have Brietbarts claim about a riot where a church was set on fire, when it was a small group letting off fireworks celebrating new years, and a small, quickly extinguished fire on some scaffolding next to the church. Renzo for instance likes to talk about the Rotheram example claiming that the abuse was ignored because the perps were muslim. This is not true. The police ignored complaints because they viewed the girls as "little slappers, whoring around with foreigners". I.e. the two principle causes that the abuse was tolerated were actually misogyny and racism. What is true is that social workers who did pick up the problem and record it - but lacked any strong powers to stop it or go after the perps and could only refer it to the aforementioned uninterested police - didn't want to explicitly refer to the perps as muslims: but that's neither here not there. They logged the problem, pointed the fingers at individuals etc. Why would the religion or ethnicity of the perpetrators matter?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Feb 16 07:30:03 Well to be honest, "cover up" is loaded and begs for conspiracy explanations and all manner of intent behind dark curtains. If I have used that to describe it in the past, that is regrettable. I can only speak for myself and while accepting the risk for confirmation bias, the idea that Muslims are on the lefts endangered species list is not based on 1 police report that fell into a dark hole for unknown reasons. It is a broad range of issues that contribute to this view. >>Why would the religion or ethnicity of the perpetrators matter?<< I don't know what hides behind the word "ethnicity", but sure, peoples belief systems and motivations matter a great deal as a predictor for future behavior. If you hold archaic illiberal values and views about women, then perhaps I wont be surprised when you molest and sexually harass them.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Feb 16 07:47:56 self-censorship is probably a better way to describe it. You just do not report certain things, because you know what type of response it will produce.
Seb Member	Thu Feb 16 13:22:11 "I don't know what hides behind the word "ethnicity"" Because actually often nobody goes to check if that person is actually a practicing Muslim - it's used as a proxy for "someone from the middle east or Asia". I.e. it's kind of like how in Raaqa "Christian" is probably used to describe anyone white, even if they are in fact an atheist. "peoples belief systems and motivations matter a great deal as a predictor for future behaviour." So if I find a bunch of white, churchgoing guys engaged in fraud, it's a great predictor about how any churchgoing person will behave? Hmm... don't buy it. " If you hold archaic illiberal values and views about women, then perhaps I wont be surprised when you molest and sexually harass them." I imagine you would object to the "all men are (potential) rapists" line from radical feminists, though they would justify it in much the way you have. Given the rates of sexual harassment and molestation among native european populations are sky high and we can point to oodles of cultural touchpoint sea dined archaic illiberal values, I don't think we can be in the business of extrapolating the worst behaviour of our group and saying "hey, this is normal". Kinda feels we're trying to take something and make judgements about an individual based on an association that may at best be tenuous. We don't do this for white Europeans, of if we do, we generally consider it bad. E.g. "Ah, she's a poor little lower class slapper who talks to brown people, she's asking for it". I mean, you don't like being associated with actual Nazis, though Paramount could quite easily construct the same kind of set that would group you, in the same way as saying "Middle Eastern Muslim" can encompass some mild mannered, non observant, pork eating, alcohol drinking, feminist dude who goes to the mosque on the weekends and observes Ramadan when his parents are around - but also encompasses frothing at the mouth lunatic that wants to behead grannies.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Feb 16 15:07:20 >>Because actually often nobody goes to check if that person is actually a practicing Muslim - it's used as a proxy for "someone from the middle east or Asia". I.e. it's kind of like how in Raaqa "Christian" is probably used to describe anyone white, even if they are in fact an atheist.<< Yes and I am trying to make that distinction here and I grant you that physical appearances adds a layer of complexity. There are (were) plenty of Arab Christians in the ME, white Europeans are generally considered infidels in Raqqa, they actually make these distinctions in the. Still you can hold these views an not be a Muslim, you have grown up in an Islamic culture and while not accepting the prophet, the values that permeate that society will rub off on you. >>Hmm... don't buy it.<< Yea me neither, what does going to Church have to do with fraud? Does Christianity tell it's adherents to commit fraud? In a manner comparable to the Islamic view on women? >>I imagine you would object to the "all men are (potential) rapists" line from radical feminists<< Being a man does not mean you come with a set of ideas and values, you know unlike if you were to tell me you are a Buddhist. You understand you are comparing an -ism an ideology with chromosomes? >>We don't do this for white<< See this is what I am afraid of, you are not making any distinction between religion, -isms, ideas etc and skin color. I made this clear from the onset, "peoples belief systems and motivations" and I skeptically questioned what was hiding behind "ethnicity", well we have our answer. So here we are where being white or a man means you believe a predefined set of ideas and hold specific values. Does a persons religion/ideology say everything about them? Can it predict all their values? Obviously not, but it is orders of magnitude more precise than skin color and having a penis. I want to make something clear, I am not a big fan of using the word "Muslim" as a substitute for brown people from the ME, when I am talking about Muslims I am talking about people who follow Islam. When I am talking about socialists I am not talking about people with red hair. >>I mean, you don't like being associated with actual Nazis<< No I don't want to be associated with an ideology I do not hold. >>Paramount could quite easily construct the same kind of set that would group you,<< I am sure we can easily construct a great many fabrications that have no basis in the real world, but to bring us back to the point... Islam (a set of ideas) is not a ethnicity, Muslims are not an ethnic group anymore than Liberals, atheist or Christians. We can read Islamic texts we can poll the adherents to get a more or less precise picture of what ideas are held to what degree. We can then look at the stats for sexual offenses. It turns out that cultures that hide their women in tents so that men may not become aroused and are taught that the women who do not cover up are whores, will reliably be overrepresented in sexual offenses. Remember that the Islamic prophet, to be emulated by all Muslims, raped women, took and gave sex slaves to his friends and had sex with a child. >>"Middle Eastern Muslim" can encompass some mild mannered, non observant, pork eating, alcohol drinking, feminist dude who goes to the mosque on the weekends and observes Ramadan when his parents are around<< Are there a lot of pork eating, alcohol drinking feminist Muslims who go to the Mosque? I doubt it, not outside the identity politics definition of Muslim, which as I told you I am not a fan of. But whatever their numbers, they are excluded from everything I have said.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Feb 16 15:23:14 It is as if you are unaware of how women who are treated in Islamic countries. FGM, the shockingly low/non existent rape stats and genuine victim blaming or 50% worth of a female testimony. Iran for instance does not even collect data for rape, there is 0 rape in Iran, along with 0 homosexuals. When people cross the border, their values and ideas do not just magically vanish.
Seb Member	Thu Feb 16 16:42:38 Nim: "In a manner comparable to the Islamic view on women?" And yet so many muslims are also able to come to a completely different view, as Christians are able to come to a completely different view than what the Bible says one must do to, say, homosexuals. Who are you to say they are doing it wrong? "Being a man does not mean you come with a set of ideas and values," The rad fems disagree quite strongly on that, in that men, in every culture on the planet, come with preconcieved ideas about the role of men and the role of women. In the same way that some non Muslims have decided what the definitive muslim position is on, say, women - is it not just as valid for rad fems to make the same decision? Or perhaps rather than trying to ascribe views to people on crude proxies, lets just individuals on their stated beliefs and behaviour. Because I don't think you can tell much at all about an individuals attitude based on something as broad as their religion, given there are so many interpretations, emphasis and degrees of salience that religion has to their day to day lives. "ee this is what I am afraid of, you are not making any distinction between religion" You misunderstand. We don't do any of this broad stroke generalisation based on any indicator for white people. I.e. we do not make broad brush assumptions about, say white Christians attitudes because we are comfortable and familiar with the idea that white, civilised people as individuals contain pluralities, contradictions etc. and - unless quite seriously disturbed - be so captured by an all encompassing idea that it determines every facet of their character. We only tend to do this kind of simplistic approach to ethnic minorities. "No I don't want to be associated with an ideology I do not hold." And yet you are strangely comfortable in telling everyone who is a Muslim they share and ideology. Something you can only do by drawing a rather large, arbitrary boundary which anyone else is free to do to - though you would recognise the distinctions between what you believe and what the other people in that supposed category believe as to render that category essentially meaningless. "We can then look at the stats for sexual offenses." I think we should. You know what the rate of women who report sexual assault in the west is? It varies between 1 in five and 1 in four. 65% of women say the have been sexually harassed. When we see these figures, do we go hunting around the bible for the misogynistic components and attribute it to Christianity (and my god there is plenty of stuff there if you want to go look). We only let women vote a hundred or so years ago. There are western countries that haven't even got around to establishing the idea that marital rape is rape. It kind of feels to me that this attempt to find a supposed religious basis misses the point: most people, including muslims, do not have their entire life determined by a religious text. And misogyny in the Islamic or Arab world is a facet of culture not far removed from that in many western countries in either degree of frequency - but the religious angle makes it easier to highlight it there while ignoring it here. "Are there a lot of pork eating, alcohol drinking feminist Muslims who go to the Mosque?" Pretty much half the Muslims I knew at uni. "not outside the identity politics definition of Muslim" Whose identity politics though? I put it to you that you are creating a card board cut out idea of a Muslim, a fairly orthodox person that puts a fairly fundamentalist interpretation of Islam at the centre of their lives so it informs their views and attitudes to everything - and having created this framework, then putting anyone who describes themselves as Muslim into this framework. This is no more true than it is for self described christians, most of whom are infrequent church goers, probably can't remember half the key bible stories but will still go to a Church to get married and baptise their kids. And what is that if not identity politics? "Iran for instance does not even collect data for rape, there is 0 rape in Iran, along with 0 homosexuals." And what of Russias attitude to homosexuality? And look at attitudes to sexual violence in Latin America. I think you are conflating the liberal worlds focus on women's rights and it's general absence outside of the developed liberal world with religion - and then thinking that can tell you useful things about an individual in the west that shares that religion.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Thu Feb 16 17:01:05 "Remember that the Islamic prophet, to be emulated by all Muslims, raped women, took and gave sex slaves to his friends and had sex with a child." old testament. "FGM" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation "And what of Russias attitude to homosexuality?" pretty similar to Japan's.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Feb 17 02:19:23 >>Who are you to say they are doing it wrong?<< No no no, we are not doing this bullshit. WHAT THE FUCK DOES FRAUD HAVE TO DO WITH GOING TO CHURCH? Please show me where in Christianity the adherents are told to go out and skim people. >>come with preconcieved ideas about the role of men and the role of women.<< You are getting pretty much everything wrong here. Rad feminist believe in cultural indoctrination, they would scoff at your ideas that men or women come with predefined (biological) anything but physical appearance. Just stop with these poorly constructed hypothetical devils advocate games. >>In the same way that some non Muslims have decided what the definitive muslim position is on, say, women - is it not just as valid for rad fems to make the same decision?<< >>lets just individuals on their stated beliefs and behaviour.<< When I am talking to an individual I will treat that person like an individual, when I am discussing populations and stats on a forum I will talk about generalities, ok? If we can not talk about things in general terms then we can not talk about anything here. You need to separate these two things and stop imposing the view that I go around mistreating ME looking people because statistically they are inclined to have illiberal ideas. >>Because I don't think you can tell much at all about an individuals attitude based on something as broad as their religion<< Ok then, there is no difference between left wingers and right wingers. THIS IS GREAT NEWS!!! Finally the world can be at peace!! Listen to what you are saying man, it is ridiculous. CLEARLY you can say a great deal about a persons attitude towards specific things based on the ideology that they identify with and live according to. >>We don't do any of this broad stroke generalisation<< >>And yet you are strangely comfortable in telling everyone who is a Muslim they share and ideology.<< "We can read Islamic texts we can poll the adherents to get a more or less precise picture of what ideas are held to what degree." >>based on any indicator for white people.<< Islam is not a skin color. >>we do not make broad brush assumptions about, say white Christians<< Wrong again, for decades Christianity has been pummeled and debated by scientists, philosophers. Guess what? Christianity has been reduced to insignificance in the West. And to the extent that it still plays a role it is criticized over and over. You basically dismissing all the works and efforts by the likes of Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris et. al on the topic of Christianity. I am sorry but you are living in an alternate world from the one I am living in. Now Islam has taken the Nr 1 spot. They are getting the same treatment, but because Islam instructs violent response against criticism and aggression towards the faith, the issue is much more inflamed and bloody. >>including muslims, do not have their entire life determined by a religious text.<< Are you doing a WTB and not reading what I am writing? "Does a persons religion/ideology say everything about them? Can it predict all their values? Obviously not, but it is orders of magnitude more precise than skin color and having a penis." We need to resolve this issue. Muslims are not an ethnic group or a skin color. White people ARE MUSLIMS. Islam is not a race or a gender, it is an ideology. When I am talking about Muslims I am talking about the people who follow the religion of Islam, white, black, brown all colors. I see white women wearing the hijab and I find it equally stupid. When you are talking about Muslims you are talking about nominally middle eastern looking people and at best cultural Muslims, who might be atheist or even ME Christians who lived in a Muslims majority country. I see 0 value in your definition beyond obfuscation. >>And what of Russias attitude to homosexuality? And look at attitudes to sexual violence in Latin America.<< I think they are great obviously, the gold standard for civilized behavior, because they are white and white people can do no wrong. The attitude towards homosexuality in Christianity and Islam is a matter of detail. Imagine that the gay hatred in the bible is in standard definition, there is support for it in the new testament no doubt. In the Islamic texts there is just more of it and more detailed, it is in HD. Christianity says homosexuality is a sin, Islam says throw them off a roof, it goes one step further on this issue (and many others). Different degrees of hell that will produce different results.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Feb 17 02:22:31 You know very little about Islam, Islamic cultures and history. This is not a matter of confirmation bias on my part. I lived in the Islamic republic, I know the kind of mild mannered cultural Muslims you know. I know the Islamist, I know the texts, I know the history. I walk away with a far more complete picture of Islam and Muslims than you do, there is no doubt about this in my mind. For some reason I am coming off as someone who is biased towards people who look like me, my wife and my family to you. I am equally startled by white russian muslims beheading people and white Bosnian Muslims who blow themselves up at SAA checkpoints. Ever noticed that Arab never jumps in these threads to correct me? Because he knows I am making a rather fair representation of his religion. And Arab is by no means extreme in his opinions, he is not in the majority, but certainly not extreme by any stretch of the imagination.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Feb 17 02:40:41 Islam is exceptional in ways compared to the other religions and even Abrahamic religions. It is for instance the only one whose holy text is the LITERAL word of god and it is accepted as such. While Christians will say that the Bible is the word of god, there is consensus among them that the Bible was written by fallible human beings. The Quran was uttered by god through an angle and memorized by Muhammed on the spot. There was no intermediary in the form of fallible human beings. This has huge consequences in the amount of leeway the religions are afforded in interpreting the text. Muhammed unlike Jesus, did not die a prophet. He died as a head of state. He invented a new form of governance (The Caliphate), he waged war, all things that Jesus (the martyr) never got around to. So naturally these things will not be big topics in the Bible. Anyway no of this will matter to you, because you still think that ideas and values do not inform behavior and actions. Which is mind boggling to me. The ideas and values in your brain (liberal/right/left/atheist?) does not inform your behavior? The ideas in your brain about equality and acceptance does not inform your behavior?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Feb 17 03:22:18 http://www...-Islam-Reshaping/dp/1250061016 I recommend this book if you want an analytical approach free of bias. This guy goes as far as to say that we should accept Islamism in politics as a way of tempering and moderating Islam into the democratic fold, similar to what you and I say about far right groups. I am undecided on that issue, but the book is good.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Feb 17 03:30:06 http://www...m-politics-exceptional/485801/ Or just read this article.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Feb 17 04:32:09 "because you still think that ideas and values do not inform behavior and actions." This is such a deep divide between us on an epistemological level that I find it hard to see how we will ever make any progress in these discussions. We had this problem the first time and when I pressed you finally admitted that yes it was >possible< for mentally healthy people to commit horrible things just based on belief. Even with this admission on your part, the distance between our POV has not diminished in any meaningful way. Far from being just possible, I see a world where bad ideas as a category is among the top causes for horror and calamity. Good and sane people committing atrocities because of ideas and values they have accepted legitimizing ethnic cleansing, mass murder, honor killings and misogyny.
Seb Member	Sun Feb 19 11:02:22 Nim: "No no no, we are not doing this bullshit. WHAT THE FUCK DOES FRAUD HAVE TO DO WITH GOING TO CHURCH? Please show me where in Christianity the adherents are told to go out and skim people." The analogy is poor, fine, replace fraud with gay beating.. The point is many Christians would say "Oh, no, ignore liviticus" Many others cite it. "You are getting pretty much everything wrong here." No. They don't say biological, and neither did I. When they say "All Men are rapists", they are talking about the cultural norm of what it means to be a Man in patriarchal (of which they seem to class all) societies. "When I am talking to an individual I will treat that person like an individual," So, in that case, why is it pertinent to mention that a number of groomers are Muslim when we know who they are as individuals. Note, they drank and took dugs - which puts them into the category of "not practicing Muslims" - so I really don't know then whether their grooming and rape of minors is another example of their "unislamic" behaviour or, as you suggested, an expression of Islam's inherent misogyny. What do you think? "If we can not talk about things in general terms then we can not talk about anything here. " Presumably if we picked another group those individuals were members of - "Men" - you might consider that too general? I certainly would, as I regard their behaviour as atypical of men, not typical. Similarly, I would regard it atypical of Muslims (globally and in this country) - yet you argue it is salient. ""We can read Islamic texts we can poll the adherents to get a more or less precise picture of what ideas are held to what degree."" And what of Leviticus? The truth is Islam's defining characteristic is a massive fucking split on how to interpret the texts and structure religious authority, and I would argue then that most people calling themselves Muslim probably do not actually put it as the centre of the lives - as is the case with most religious pratitioners. Once you start segmenting that in your statistics further and further, it becomes pretty useless predictor. "there is no difference between left wingers and right wingers." Depends how you define left and right. Certainly if you look at UKIP voters and Trumpists, there is a massive switchover between left and right and the thing that identifies as right adopts historically left wing policies. Left wing and Right wing have tended to be a hell of a lot more coherent than religions. And neither would someones voting preferences be a good predictor about everything else about them too. "and live according to." And that's the bit I disagree with - to what extent could the supposedly Muslim (but not living according to Islam) rotherham abusers who the state would not call Muslims abusers be said to be Muslims. You suggested that it would be useful to label them so as it tells you about their motivations, but surely the fact they violated basic Islamic tennets (like not drinking alcohol, not taking drugs) rules them out as such? "Islam is not a skin color." I know. Go back and read what I said again. We wouldn't dream of saying "Oh, you can tell a lot about Irish people because of their Catholicism". "Guess what? Christianity has been reduced to insignificance in the West." And yet Catholic/Protestant tensions lie at the heart of our second biggest terrorist threat and responsible for more deaths than Islamic terrorism here. "Muslims are not an ethnic group" Actually, if Muslims live their lives according to a set of well defined practices, that's the very definition of an ethnic group as it would be a common cultural background. I am arguing that while there is some degree of common cultural linkage, you can't claim that simply identifying as a Muslim means a useful predictor of ideology and behaviour. "who follow the religion of Islam," Which, we should bare in mind, encompasses at least two large splits on what that religion actually entails, some adherents of each view the others as heretics. And if you have narrowed your definition of Muslim down to exclude people who consider themselves Muslim, but who you consider to be merely "Culturaly Muslim:", then obviously we have absolutely nothing to gain by say, labelling the Rotherham abusers as Muslim because even if they describe themselves as such, the fact they drink alcohol presumably means they aren't Muslims in the sense you mean - because they are violating one of the key religious rules? You mention Dawkins and Hitchens valuable work on Christianity - but largely they focused on things that most Christians I know do not actually believe. Which is the danger in treating a religious text like a deeply ideological political manifesto. It contradicts itself too much to function as one. "Christianity says homosexuality is a sin" Christianity says this of homosexuality: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
Seb Member	Sun Feb 19 11:06:22 "because you still think that ideas and values do not inform behavior and actions." So, to go back to a concrete example: Was the abuser informed by his ideology when he abused the girls, or by nonIslamic sinful urges that made him drink and do drugs? I put it to you we can never know. But if we took your statistical point of view, we would see his behaviour is highly abnormal among British Muslims, about as statistically relevant as among Cuaucasian Brits, and substantially less frequent than amongst Catholic Priests who we must assume take their Christianity quite seriously indeed!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Feb 19 13:05:52 >>The analogy is poor, fine, replace fraud with gay beating..<< And Christians have gotten plenty of shit for the shit that they do instructed by their religion. >>The point is many Christians would say "Oh, no, ignore liviticus" Many others cite it.<< Just not true. Only true fringes of Christianity cite the old testament as laws to be lived according. Through out Christian history there has been a consensus on this. Only by completely disregarding the purpose of Jesus as fulfilling the covenant can you get there. This is just not the case in Islam. >>They don't say biological, and neither did I. When they say "All Men are rapists", they are talking about the cultural norm of what it means to be a Man in patriarchal (of which they seem to class all) societies.<< Then you shouldn't talk about men coming with ideas and values and stop comparing a sex (biology) with Islam (ideology). I do not want to make this discussion bigger than it already is. >>So, in that case, why is it pertinent to mention that a number of groomers are Muslim when we know who they are as individuals.<< Because we are talking about behavior across populations. Yes people holding certain ideas are more prone to act certain ways. Is you daughter more likely to be sexually assaulted by men or women? Should we start hiding the gender of sexual offenders? The same applies to cultures. Because of the huge gap in what constitutes as a "sexual offense" across cultures we will get vastly different outcomes. >>Note, they drank and took dugs - which puts them into the category of "not practicing Muslims" - so I really don't know then whether their grooming and rape of minors is another example of their "unislamic" behaviour or, as you suggested, an expression of Islam's inherent misogyny. << We have talk about this before. I quote you what Majid Nawaz had to say about this. This is wrong even beyond the true Scotsman fallacy. You can find my answer here. http://www...hread=79085&time=1482639100231 Furthermore you seem to not at all pay attention to any of my attempts to try to explain for you Muhammad life and his own rape of minors and sex slavery. >>Presumably if we picked another group those individuals were members of - "Men" - you might consider that too general?<< It depends on what specific things we are talking about. If we are talking about and exploring behavior rooted in biology, then it would make plenty of sense to speak about men in general terms. If we are talking about behavior rooted in culture, then no. >>And what of Leviticus?<< Asked and answered, multiple times with multiple posters across many threads. The old testament has NEVER been a book for Christians or even Jews to live according to. Go read it up and discover the fact that this has been the consensus in these religions since ever. I am not going to respond to this again. >>The truth is Islam's defining characteristic is a massive fucking split on how to interpret the texts and structure religious authority, and I would argue then that most people calling themselves Muslim probably do not actually put it as the centre of the lives - as is the case with most religious pratitioners.<< Uuuuhm >Kinda<! Yes there are many legal schools of interpretation of the Sharia. Something that does not even exist in Christianity to begin with. You should really let this unpack in your mind, this is a big difference, the total lack of religious law in Christianity like the Sharia. Another exceptional thing in Islam. Yes in Islam there are many schools that interpret these laws WITHIN A VERY RIGID FRAMEWORK and with set conditions, rules and a legal and academic bureaucracy. You can not make any interpretation you want. On most of the issues you and I would find appalling pertaining to equality and human rights, there are broad consensus that you and I would find very little solace in. It is just not as simple as you think. The moderate Muslims that make the liberal interpretations that you and I could live with are unfortunately insignificant. We should do everything we can to help them, but very difficult with people on the left shitting on them and calling them "native informants", "porch monkies" etc. >>and I would argue then that most people calling themselves Muslim probably do not actually put it as the centre of the lives - as is the case with most religious pratitioners.<< Because you do not understand Islam. Read the link I gave you, it has this to say among other things: "The punishment of sins is no longer a priority, since Jesus died for them. In stark contrast, where theologians like Martin Luther famously fashioned a dialectic between faith and good works, these two things are inextricably tied together in Islam. Faith is often expressed through the observance of the law. The failure to follow Islamic law is a reflection of the believer’s lack of faith and unwillingness to submit to God. Salvation is impossible without law. This has implications for the nature of the Islamic state." >>You suggested that it would be useful to label them so as it tells you about their motivations, but surely the fact they violated basic Islamic tennets (like not drinking alcohol, not taking drugs) rules them out as such?<< I am saying that people who are Muslims or come from Muslim majority countries will have ideas about women, equality, freedom of speech etc. that will not jive well with a liberal democracy. Now some of these things also apply to a number of NON-muslims from these countries, because Islam is a very central and overbearing layer in these societies, it is very oppressive and intolerant towards other faiths and ideas. >>I know. Go back and read what I said again. We wouldn't dream of saying "Oh, you can tell a lot about Irish people because of their Catholicism"<< I did read. I am talking about ideology and you keep bringing up "White people" and "men". >>And yet Catholic/Protestant tensions lie at the heart of our second biggest terrorist threat and responsible for more deaths than Islamic terrorism here.<< The Irish conflict had nothing to do with Christian doctrine. It was tribalism made worse by religious identity. Listen, I have no issue blaming Christians for the stupid and harmeful shit that they do and have done through out history. The Irish conflict is not you hitting the bullz eye, it's another meh, kinda. If you bring up abortion or the heinous campaign of the Catholic church to help spread AIDS in Africa? You have a home run. But you don't, you keep insisting that the religions are the same. They are not, Islam instructs VIOLENCE as a response for the adherents on some specific things. Christianity, well you already know the story about turning the other cheek. Now this does not mean Christians never do violence, they do, but not for instance as a response to criticism of their religion or depictions of Jesus, because there are no such passages in the Bible. Very simple. Had there been then most likely Christians would go ape shit over that. >>Actually, if Muslims live their lives according to a set of well defined practices, that's the very definition of an ethnic group as it would be a common cultural background.<< You have constantly brought up skin color and it just adds to confusion. Let's keep this simple and call Islam a religion. I am fully aware of cultural and geographic difference , but also of the similarities, the universals in the cultures. >>you can't claim that simply identifying as a Muslim means a useful predictor of ideology and behaviour.<< Well I have read the polls and being familiar with the text, when I read that 80% of Egypt think that death is a fitting punishment for apostasy, very little in the way of surprise for me, I assure you. I keep reading and reading and I realize that you can say something about a persons values and ideas depending on their religion. And you can predict behavior depending on the ideas and values people profess. People who think drugs should be legal are more likely to use drugs, people who are republicans are more likely to be pro-life, people who are liberals are more likely to be pro-abortion etc. etc. etc. I am shocked that this idea is so controversial for you. >>Which, we should bare in mind, encompasses at least two large splits on what that religion actually entails,<< The Shis/sunni split is almost exclusively one of politics and succession. Then over the centuries they have devised different hats and clothings to separate themselves from each other even more, but again when it comes to the nasty illiberal parts there is pretty much consensus. God dam it seb, you are just wrong, factually wrong about pretty much everything. And I really do not blame you for not sharing my interest in the subject or my heritage, but PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD stop defending things you are CLEARLY misunderstanding. You are misunderstanding Christianity, Islam and my motivations. I hate and love Islam, there are parts of it I love because it is parts of my history, cultural heritage and childhood, but I also hate it because it is an exceptionally shitty religion. Yes exceptionally shitty. >>narrowed your definition of Muslim down to exclude people who consider themselves Muslim,<< If someone says they are Muslim, I accept them as a Muslim, that is my rule. Then if we have a chance to talk we will hash out the details. If in that conversation it turns out that this person is only a Muslim in name only i.e a cultural Muslim that does not believe in any of things I would have issue with, good for him. Yes in mind somewhere and perhaps I would ask him/her, why call yourself a Muslim at all if you don't wish to carry the baggage? It is kinda weird for me to go around calling myself a Communist if all I really like is the red color of their flags. But whatever I don't care. >>but largely they focused on things that most Christians I know do not actually believe.<< This is just false and evidently so for someone who has watched hours upon hours of debates. Yes they brought up old testament stuff, but unlike you it was brought up as a case against the loving GOD not insisting that Christians followed them as rules. >>Christianity says this of homosexuality:<< >insert quote from Leviticus<< What was it that you said about things that Christians do not believe? Like ever believed in the entire history of Christianity? Old testament stuff would be one of them. But granted there is an unbroken tradition of gay hatred in Christianity, though the NT, Jesus fulfillment of the covenant, the unstructured and multiple authorship of the Bible provides a degree of pragmatism in Christianity not afforded to Islam. I have never denied the gay hatred in Christianity, I am well aware of it, I have just objected to the usage of the Old testament as things Christians are suppose to live according to, you know unlike Sharia. >>Was the abuser informed by his ideology when he abused the girls, or by nonIslamic sinful urges that made him drink and do drugs?<< Why do religious people break some rules and not others? I have no idea. Why would breaking one and following the other make them less convicted? If you are on a diet because you are fat and you cheat at eat a pizza, does that mean you are less convinced you are living unhealthy, or that rules are hard to follow sometimes? >>I put it to you we can never know.<< And like I said a couple thousand words ago. My opinions on this subject are not based one 1 incident. And just to be clear I have no opinions about this Rotherham incident, the fact that you bring it up probably means it is a strawman. >>But if we took your statistical point of view<< From a statistical point of view in Sweden, men from Muslims majority countries were over-represented in sexual offences. While historically the rapist is someone the relative knows, over the past years the number of rapes by a unknown assailant has risen sharply here. Just recently we have 3 Afghan boys raped another boy in the woods. I mentioned in that thread, that raping little boys is a national sport in Afghanistan. You think there is a connection?
Seb Member	Sun Feb 19 14:00:08 Nim: "Just not true. Only true fringes of Christianity cite the old testament as laws to be lived according. Through out Christian history there has been a consensus on this. Only by completely disregarding the purpose of Jesus as fulfilling the covenant can you get there." So what's in the new testament are the dietary restrictions (e.g. no meat but fish on fridays) that were commonly abided by until the 19th c? The idea that the old testament can be dispensed with entirely is a minority view across Christian sects. Catholics believe the moral laws still stand. Hence the absolute ban on contraception. Which is another great example of an absolute moral ban often ignored by people who would otherwise profess themselves catholic. "Then you shouldn't talk about men coming with ideas and values" No, I should. The point is the rad fems think the idea so prevalent that it's a given. You may disagree with their view and say only biological determinism could justify such a strong statement. "Because we are talking about behavior across populations" Are we though? It would only be true if grooming were a distinctly Muslim phenomenon. But there re are loads of non Muslim pederasts. So arguing we should look more closely at Muslims because some pederasts identified as Muslims (though not adopting all Muslim behaviour) seems as unreasonable to me as "all men are rapists".
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Feb 19 15:23:52 >>So what's in the new testament are the dietary restrictions (e.g. no meat but fish on fridays) that were commonly abided by until the 19th c?<< Nothing, but there is also nothing stoping Christians from reading the OT. The point is that there is nothing mandating Christians to follow Mosaic laws and hence there is no consensus over these things, the total lack of a central message aids the fragmentation and pragmatic approach to it all. Islam is much more instructive, simple and straight forward, it is part of the appeal for many Muslims. >>The idea that the old testament can be dispensed with entirely is a minority view across Christian sects. Catholics believe the moral laws still stand.<< The 10 commandments are the only laws still in effect. The bible is an extremely poorly constructed book and full of contradictions if the goal is to convey some central message. But while the moral law might still stand, there is no punishment until judgement day. The Catholic Church tried to be like a Caliphate, but it failed because Christianity lacked in Jesus what Islam had in Muhammed. Instead it had a history of sharing power with the Roman emperor and passages supporting the sepreation of church and state. It was thus easy for the kings of Europe to NOT share power with the Pope. This was then further aided by Martin Luthers reform allowing for further distancing from the Vatican. There is some similarities in what Martin Luther did and what the Iranian Safavid King Ismail did, when he forcibly converted Irans population to Shia Islam. He did this as a way of eliminating the 5th column in his kingdom against the Ottoman Caliphate, who held great influence over Sunni Muslims. Most likely the Ottomans would have swallowed Iran from the inside had Iran not been converted to Shia Islam. >>The point is the rad fems think the idea so prevalent that it's a given.<< My statements are not wrong because radical feminist are wrong about totally unrelated subjects. >>Are we though? It would only be true if grooming were a distinctly Muslim phenomenon.<< You are misunderstanding me here. I am not saying that there is a rape epidemic in Muslims majority countries. Not at all, because in Muslims majority countries, women dress and BEHAVE a certain way, societies have evolved and been constructed according to certain norms, business as usual. It only becomes a problem when they come to countries where all those conservative norms are gone. Women are not dressing "modestly", they are dressing and behave like whores they get drunk and they ARE asking for it. The do all the things you as a man are told a a good godly woman should not do. Rape is used to punish immodest women in many of these societies. What is rape and what is not rape, if she was asking for it or not, varies depending on culture. As you mentioned there are some rather shitty opinions regarding this in South America. There is something we can call "honor culture" that contributes to this and Islamic cultures are not unique in that regard. What is unique is the reoccurring and specific instructions in the Quran and the hadiths about women that, as I mentioned earlier, takes things one step further or provides clarity in other words reduces room for pragmatism. >>So arguing we should look more closely at Muslims<< I have not argued this. I am stating some, for me, uncontroversial realities about Islamic cultures and the views on sex and women. When my wife goes to visit her mother in the muslim dense part of town and she feels she has to dress a certain way, why is that you think? Because immigrants are poor and uneducated? The Muslims view on women is no different than the average Swede? Why doesn't she feel this way in our part of the city? Or is it because Muslims have very conservative views about these things? I don't deny the existence of white conservative honor cultures, the whole idiocy with "legitimate rape" for instance and many other lulzy things US republicans said. Things rooted in conservative Christian ideals. Muslims are just more conservative, there is just more support and clearer instructions on these issues in Islam, it IS really that simple. As a religious instructions Islam is a big improvement over Christianity, the message is clear, concise and straight forward. It reduces the room for interpretation and thus misreading and straying from the "true" instructions of god. As far as instructions go, that is what you are aiming for, but this is also the big weakness and part of what has made Islam so resistant to secularization over the centuries.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Feb 19 15:31:51 >>There is some similarities in what Martin Luther did and what the Iranian Safavid King Ismail did,<< I should clarify, similarities in historical outcome, not the acts themselves.
Seb Member	Sun Feb 19 16:17:13 You equate not focusing (which is not the same as hiding) the religion of a person with obscuring the gender of sex offenders. I think the situation is different in that people generally consider the idea that gender can be a good predictor of complex behaviour (like grooming girls) to be ridiculous. Bar some rad fems controversialist slogans which are rightly derided as outrageously offensive (which it was intended to be). I would say yes, when you pick out a criminal act that statistically is no higher amongst a population that shares a religion, when a good number of religious authorities condemn that act as immoral, and when the people in question are clearly no motivated by religion in other aspects (e.g. slugging down booze as they rape the girls) - it seems to me that the only reason to call attention to their religion is to try and suggest that it was religiously motivated and that this tells you something about other people who identify with that religion. But this could be as salacious as: Muslims drink alcohol regularly, because these chaps did. Well, obviously not. We probably wouldn't even entertain this idea if we said "The prevalence of abuse by catholic priests tells us something about Catholicism and by extension other people who identify as Catholic" - though I would admit the organised nature of the subsequent cover up tells you an awful lot about the catholic *church*, which is a very different proposition. I think most British Muslims would quite stridently disagree that organised pederastry was a feature of their culture. I quote you what Majid Nawaz had to say about this. This is wrong even beyond the true Scotsman fallacy. You can find my answer here. http://www...hread=79085&time=1482639100231 "Muhammad life and his own rape of minors and sex slavery." *shrug* - the fact you can find a parallel in the text doesn't mean that is what motivated the individuals in question. And if organised pederastry is a Muslim thing, why in practice is the statistical prevalence no greater than amongst the caucasian population, and substantially less than Catholic Priests? Surely, if Muslims were somehow permitted or encouraged by the religion to do such things, you'd at least expect more of it - given we know that there are a lot of Caucasians with paedophilic tendencies that do not carry through on it and try to seek some kind of therapy for it. Arguing that the Rotherham chaps felt they were in wartime is a bit of a stretch, given they displayed no other such indicators. I think you may have to accept the fact that actually, they were just dirty perverts who preyed outside their immediate social community because you don't shit where you eat. "It depends on what specific things we are talking about." Oh, lets say rape. "If we are talking about behavior rooted in culture, then no." I think many people would strongly argue that rape is rooted in cultural attitudes to women as property, power dynamics etc. "Asked and answered, multiple times with multiple posters across many threads. The old testament has NEVER been a book for Christians or even Jews to live according to." I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. "Go read it up and discover the fact that this has been the consensus in these religions since ever." Unlike you, perhaps, I was actually thoroughly raised by a christian education system. Sadly, I used to actually have to be one of the chaps carrying candles and crosses around. There are a diversity of views, but your insistence that every Christian sect is a proponent of New Covenant Theology isn't correct. "Yes there are many legal schools of interpretation of the Sharia. Something that does not even exist in Christianity to begin with." What now? Different schools/interpretations or a religious law? Because there are both! Our last King but one abdicated over the issue of divorcees on account of it being against religious laws. You can't get divorced in some European countries because of religious law. And the only reason it isn't all encompassing is because during the late medieval period the religious courts and temporal courts merged. "You can not make any interpretation you want." And the entire basis of Protestant Catholic split is *exactly* that split. The larger chunk of Christianity (Orthodox, Catholics, Anglican/Episcopalians) similarly believe that interpretation is set by a religious authority. They just disagree over who that authority should be. "On most of the issues you and I would find appalling pertaining to equality and human rights, there are broad consensus that you and I would find very little solace in. It is just not as simple as you think." And yet we are not talking about the world of ideas here. Most people who pertain to a religion do not practice it in the unyielding way you suggest. As witnessed by the billion or so Muslims that are not reluctantly going around cutting peoples head off and swigging from bottles of booze as they rape women because it's war time... and lets be honest, for most of them it will NEVER be war time because they don't actually want to do that shit, so they will ignore any part of their religion that might appear to compel them to do so. If asked they might say "well, yes, under some circumstances x is justified" - in much the reluctant way many mainstream Christians will mutter that homosexuality is very definitely a sin, marriage is between a man and a woman. "We should do everything we can to help them" How about lets not start by suggesting that anyone who calls themselves a Muslim is somehow connected with any other criminal who calls themself a muslim. "The punishment of sins is no longer a priority, since Jesus died for them." And yet you know, we do see self styled Christians do precisely that. Not the majority. But actually we don't see the majority of Muslims going around executing apostates, heretics etc. Arguing that the theology of the new testament drove the change in behaviour is ahistorical. For hundreds of years the Church was all about persecuting and punishing sinners, and inextricably linked with the state. Your arguing like the Spanish Inquisition didn't happen. It is not that Christianity moderated behaviour - rather the enlightenment and behaviours forced a moderated interpretation of Christianity. Again, I cite the general lack (in history and now) of reluctant, quietly depressed people forced to carry out religious punishments that they would really rather not be doing, but alas, have to as an unfortunate price of believing in their particular god. "I am saying that people who are Muslims or come from Muslim majority countries will have ideas about women, equality, freedom of speech etc. that will not jive well with a liberal democracy." But also not any specific person. "Now some of these things also apply to a number of NON-muslims from these countries," And some non muslims not from these countries of course. So the question is - and as you pointed out - statistically one should be able to measure these things. And if one cannot distinguish this effect in say, grooming little girls for sex, if one is looking around for a cause one then is left with a problem. If statistically men of muslim background are motivated to do such terrible things by their attitude to women, does that mean that there is some other motivation present in caucasians that, "Muslim culture" aside, is not present in those cultures, such that those avowedly and self consciously rejecting Islam and said culture from those countries are actually statistically LESS likely to commit such acts than Caucasians (I.e. stripped of their pernicious cultural baggage, they would be better than Caucasians in that respect)? Come on - lets be honest here - the reason there is no statistical difference in behaviour is because certain men of any culture have not needed to look for religious motivation to abuse women to get their end on. I'm more in agreement with the rad fems here: pretty much all the big cultures are steeped in misogyny (The Abrahamics are indistinguishable on this point: original sin etc.) - the focus on individual rights and freedoms is not something that flowed from the new testament but from the rationalist enlightenment (and slowly) - and that entirely explains the philosophical rejection of such things in the west. But sadly, despite this philosophical rejection, actual behavioural change has not been nearly as significant as we would like to believe. 65% of women in the west experience sexual harassment. 20-25% Rape. And as you say, Christianity is dead. But gender roles routed in religion were only ever a crutch to explain misogynistic tendencies. Despite that, I still disagree that you can tell anything useful about an individuals attitudes to women or behaviour towards women from the fact that they come from this culture. "I did read. I am talking about ideology and you keep bringing up "White people" and "men"." I'm saying, very simply, we would not dream of making the same kind of pronouncements about a white Catholic based on his religion as we would about an Arab based on his. And the reason for this is because we allow for a deeper, more complex mind in the case of the white guy. "The Irish conflict had nothing to do with Christian doctrine." Other than the issue of who the rightful king was, divine right etc. The tribes didn't exist until they adopted different religions. How is that NOT a doctrinal split? Arguing that Christianity is of no consequence in the west completely ignores that for these two groups it is literally the defining feature of their identity. "They are not, Islam instructs VIOLENCE as a response for the adherents on some specific things. Christianity, well you already know the story about turning the other cheek." Only because you choose to pretend that all Christians believe that all aspects of Mosaic law, the old Covenant were superseded by Jesus. The truth is most Christians decide to quietly ignore these things. Some still do get very animated by them - animated to violence. Many more will if pushed admit such things are sinful but explain away why they quietly ignore them. My point then is - if all Muslims believe as literally as they are supposed to about these things, why do a billion Muslims live predominantly at peace with the world? Where are the reluctant people who really don't want to be blowing up Christians and Jews but recognise they must do for their religious obligation? "Had there been then most likely Christians would go ape shit over that." I guess you don't know much about that time a few hundred years ago where we went around killing all the catholic idolaters (Old testament) and bashing out the stained glass windows and burning their graven images of Christ. You have the causality backwards. The Billion Muslims not running around making war on the west is the first step (lets just quietly ignore this) on the road to what comes later (lets reconcile our actual practice with the text and explain how it's all fine). The fact you are able to say these things about Christianity is simply because we have formalised the letter of things with the new morality that reflects the actual norms. Which is why I think you are barking up the wrong tree - as Dawkins and Hitchens were about Christianity - by focusing on the texts. It's norms and practice that counts. "You have constantly brought up skin color and it just adds to confusion." Yeah, because I think we would laugh the same kinds of ideas out of town if we talked about white people as being defined by their ideology. Even something more defined like political ideology. Very people live their lives as an ideologue. "when I read that 80% of Egypt think that death is a fitting punishment for apostasy, very little in the way of surprise for me, I assure you." Right, but that's very different from saying you would put someone to death for apostasy, or even - and this depends very much on the wording - that you think the state should. Just as many Christians will mumble, if forced, that Homosexuality is a sin, and divorces shouldn't be allowed to be married in a church. Few would actually go out and pelt someone with stones* or block access to a Church. Hell, some CoE priests will let a gay couple go through with the near the whole marriage ceremony in their Church while presiding over it even if you are gay, bar just a few tiny bits committed; whilst accepting homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God, and Marriage is just a big no-no. *And don't give me that shit about Jesus negating the need for that because in the 2000 odd years since Jesus allegedly died on the cross for our Sins, a good 1900 of those have been characterised by Christians vigorously punishing each other and others for sins. So my question is when your answer in a society like Egypt is "Death is a fitting punishment for apostasy", is that simply an acknowledgement that yes, that indeed is what the crime for Apostasy is set out as being - or is that "Absolutely, we should vigorously go out and hunt down those committing it and put them to death"? Because actually, we see relatively little of that blanket punishment (given simply drinking Alcohol is apostasy) and quite a lot of turning of the blind eye. "I am shocked that this idea is so controversial for you." So, again, if for example - the Rotherham pederasts pedearastry is fully explained by Islam through Muhammed sex slave underage wives - why is it statistically no more common among British Muslims than Caucasians? "The Shis/sunni split is almost exclusively one of politics and succession." Ok, lets add in the Suffis. "You are misunderstanding Christianity" he says, appealing to his heritage, ignoring the fact that I actually underwent 10 years of religious fucking education in Church of England institutions. Ho hum. "Yes exceptionally shitty." Only because you have decided that the modernist tradition of ignoring all the nasty bits of Christianity (which has been the practice for less than 10% of the religions history) is somehow "Gospel", rather than a retcon to justify preferred practice. PRACTICE MATTERS. Not everyone is a fundamentalist in their practice (even if they are supposed to be) - note the etymology of that word: first used to describe the reformist Christians who wanted to strip away all the Roman Catholic crap and go back to literal interpretations of the biblical text, hence the necessary heresy of translating the bible. "If someone says they are Muslim, I accept them as a Muslim, that is my rule. Then if we have a chance to talk we will hash out the details. If in that conversation it turns out that this person is only a Muslim in name only i.e a cultural Muslim that does not believe in any of things I would have issue with, good for him." But don't you see that in taking that definition, you are being potentially as fundamentalist as ISIS in saying that, e.g. a true Muslim believe in death for Apostasy, and anyone who takes a different view is doing it wrong. If you took the same view on that and applied it to Christians, the truth is there are no Christians left - they all got soft over the last 200 years and abandoned more and more of the religion. The self appointed gatekeepers of the interpretation succumbed to corruption and lies (ironically exactly what the Protestants accused the Roman Catholic Church of doing) until the doctrine was pretty much gutted down to some very bare bone basics. Blah Blah Blah. "This is just false and evidently so for someone who has watched hours upon hours of debates. Yes they brought up old testament stuff, but unlike you it was brought up as a case against the loving GOD not insisting that Christians followed them as rules." "What was it that you said about things that Christians do not believe? Like ever believed in the entire history of Christianity? Old testament stuff would be one of them. But granted there is an unbroken tradition of gay hatred in Christianity, though the NT, Jesus fulfillment of the covenant, the unstructured and multiple authorship of the Bible provides a degree of pragmatism in Christianity not afforded to Islam." The bits of leviticus that everyone agrees in Christianity do not apply to Christians are the ceremonial laws. Moral laws still apply. Hence, ten commandments still apply. Large chunks of Leviticus are about ceremonial law, but that one is a moral law and still applies - many would argue. Some would argue it is a judicial law, and there is a broader disparity in agreement between christian churches over whether any, some or all of those still apply. " I have just objected to the usage of the Old testament as things Christians are suppose to live according to, you know unlike Sharia." I hate to point it out but the Ten Commandments are old Testament, Old Covenant, and still stand (being moral law). This "Jesus fulfilled the old covenant by dying for our sins means only new covenant rules apply" - the chief being Love they Neighbour as you Love Thyself (and how many Christians practice that!). "Why do religious people break some rules and not others? I have no idea. " Neither do I, but the fact they do fatally undermines the idea that simply declaring a religious identity can be a useful predictor of an individuals behaviour. Hence, given we know the individuals in Rotherham are, why is their religion salient? "And just to be clear I have no opinions about this Rotherham incident, the fact that you bring it up probably means it is a straw man." ">>Why would the religion or ethnicity of the perpetrators matter?<< I don't know what hides behind the word "ethnicity", but sure, peoples belief systems and motivations matter a great deal as a predictor for future behavior. " I thought by this you were in fact saying that the fact they were Muslims was salient (note we would not say, were we to a gang of paedophiles that happened to be Christian that they were Christian). "From a statistical point of view in Sweden, men from Muslims majority countries were over-represented in sexual offences." So I've seen this claimed - but whenever I try to follow up on it in primary stats, I find that Sweden does not and has not historically recorded ethnicity of perpetrator or victim. The only argument I've seen that bares up to statistics is that there was a large rise between 1995 and the present - but that predates migration and is more likely to be explained by the way Sweden counts offences, reduced stigma in reporting, the creation of new offences etc. Do you actually have data to back this up? "While historically the rapist is someone the relative knows, over the past years the number of rapes by a unknown assailant has risen sharply here." I think one should be very, very careful about making such leaps. Trump/Mexicans/Well then whose doing all the Raping" comes to mind. In recent years we have seen the rise of things like Tinder etc which have been behind the rise in hook-up culture and thus incidents like date rape of the kind Julian Assange is wanted for. In Sweden. To think of one random example. So, yeah, I think that one goes into the "correlation is not causality" bucket until you can find something a bit more substantive.
Forwyn Member	Sun Feb 19 20:40:50 Was this your speech, Seb? http://youtu.be/Gmc-kPYayYA
obaminated Member	Sun Feb 19 21:17:08 I thought that had to be a stunt by a Islamic comedian throughout the whole video. But yeah, let us continue to pretend the majority of practicing muslims can be westernized. Note - I've spent time with Muslim in name only muslims and they are attractive and loose women.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 20 03:31:48 These are the official Swedish stats http://www...fodda_sverige_och_utlandet.pdf SEXUALBROTT (sexual off (6 kap. BrB) 0,15 - 0,23 - 0,49 Våldtäkt/försök till våldtäkt 0,04 - 0,08 - 0,22 Use google translate, first number is for swedes, second for children to immigrants, third is for those born outside of Sweden. And these numbers are collected 1997-2005 prior to all the Internet magic you mentioned. Shocking stuff for you I imagine. Not for me however. I know you mean well, but I am not going to waste more time in this thread.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 20 03:42:49 Just this, all of this is rooted in what different cultures define as "rape" and sexual offense, the bar for this varies depending on the degree of honor culture involved. Islam is honor culture on steroids when it comes to the chastity of women. In South America they will drag a cheating woman out in the streets and cut her hair and strip her down and beat her, in Iran they will stone her to death. That is the difference, whether you accept that this "nuance" is rooted in scripture or not, is irrelevant to me. It is a fact that I deal with good or bad and accepted as a matter of the practical reality I live in. Regardless of what well intentioned and well mannered British people think is going on, when I am talking to young men from muslim cultures, it certainly helps to know where all the ideas are coming from.
Seb Member	Mon Feb 20 13:23:22 I shall need time to dig through this - but the English summary looks to me like you are playing a little fast and loose. e.g. stresses that migrants make up a small fraction of crimes, so even a large spike in migrants shouldn't produce a large spike in overall crime rate. Also adjustment for other factors needs to be considered. But we shall see through the numbers. Internet magic is a bit dismissive fora known, recorded phenomenon. Muslims are not the cause of the huge spike in campus sexual assaults.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 20 14:21:57 Hold on seb. http://www...rares-barns-brottslighet-1.pdf From 1996. English summary at the end. "We can conclude that, the problem of immigrant criminality is not perhaps as large as is often supposed. >>However<<, regarding serious crimes such as >>rape<<, homicide, manslaughter and robbery the proportion is often >>far higher<< than for criminality as a whole." https://polisen.se/Global/www%20och%20Intrapolis/%C3%96vriga%20rapporter/Lagesbild%20over%20sexuella%20ofredanden.pdf Police summary from 2016 page 15, 80% of offenders are immigrants. Other keywords "Afghanistan, Eritrea och Somalia". http://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/paris-ile-de-france/paris/viols-paris-dans-50-des-cas-la-victime-connait-son-agresseur-910649.html ^The typical french rapist.^ http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/valdtaktsman-far-ingen-behandling/ ^Half the rapist do not know Swedish, making rehabilitation difficult because there is a lack of translators. https://www.svd.se/brottslighet-bland-invandrare-borde-oroa-alla-partier Norway seems to experience the same thing. http://www.mx.dk/nyheder/danmark/story/15585293 And Denmark too. http://www.bra.se/download/18.cba82f7130f475a2f1800020907/1371914732300/2000_statistik_om_gruppvaldtakter.pdf http://fof.se/tidning/2013/10/artikel/dramatisk-okning-av-antalet-anmalda-gruppvaldtakter ^This two are about gang rape. 58% of the perps are Swedes a quarter of which have non Swedish backgrounds. 32% are born outside Sweden. Get your golfing shoes so you can dig those heels deep into the dirt! Or you can just admit the something very uncontroversial as shown by this study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3256140/?tool=pubmed ^Rape is twice as more likely in cultures where inequality is normalized. Like say Islamic cultures. https://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2016/01/14/en-blick-betyder-inget-i-finland ^Here is an Iraqi asylum seeker in Finland (oh yea they have the same problems) trying to explain the clash of the Islamic macho culture with the egalitarian societies of norther Europe on the topic of sexuality and male female interactions. Maybe he will have more luck convincing you than I did.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 20 14:32:14 lulz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_sexual_assault_in_Egypt According to a 2008 survey by the Egyptian Center for Women's Rights, 83% of Egyptian women said they had experienced sexual harassment, >>as did 98% of women from overseas while in Egypt<<.[30]:16 A 2013 study in Egypt by UN Women found that 99.3% of female respondents said they had been sexually harassed.[29] Tell me if you need more links explaining the controversial facts that Islamic cultures treat women like garbage. I can literally supply you with article and studies that will tie you to your computer until you die from old age.
Seb Member	Mon Feb 20 15:00:35 Nim: "Police summary from 2016 page 15, 80% of offenders are immigrants. Other keywords "Afghanistan, Eritrea och Somalia"." So far as I can make out via g translate, that actually says that of 123 cases of sexual harassment reported in public baths ... 80% were young male asylum seekers. So we are talking about what, a maximum of 98 individuals in this instance - and the scope for cultural difference in sexual harassment - which can be verbal - vs assault is a much wider gulf. So, yeah, I'm going to have to take the time to understand the statistics. Not wishing to sound uncharitable, but someone reading your post without checking the context - buried deep in a report in Swedish - could mistakenly come to the conclusion that 80% of all sexual offenders are immigrants. Presumably, as in the rest of the west, the predominant bulk of sexual crimes in Sweden are sexual assault - done in private, by someone already known to the victim. That one in 4 women experiencing sexual assault figure isn't predominantly from refugees and immigrants. Without a proper background, it makes it difficult to put a figure like "80% of the perpetrators of sexual harassment in public baths" into a real statistical context. Regarding the Paris figures, about half the perps are foreigners - but 25% of the residents of Paris (note excludes tourists) are foreigners. 30% of the victims are foreigners. Most foreign residents of Paris are actually Europeans+Americans: 55%. It would be interesting to adjust that foreign figure for other parameters (age - for example: if the foreign population of Paris is typically closer to the 34 year old median age of sex offenders - which might be expected of foreign workers in a city) -Using the 2011 census data on wiki. So, as you can see, if you don't mind, I'll take my time because I think people can suffer from significant confirmation bias when handling statistics. For example, I assume the point you were making with the Paris stat was linking foreigners with those from Islamic cultures - even though there isn't sufficient data to do that.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Feb 20 16:00:02 >>but someone reading your post without checking the context<< Because the one about bath houses is so different from the other ones you mean? There is no pattern here? Even when Swedish authorities EXPLICITLY say that immigrants are over-represented in serious crimes like rape? Parse the data however you want bud, I am sure you can save some face when you have taken the time you need with it :) I am sure France is totally different from all the other places. I am sure the 34 year old unemployed, immigrant rapist with priors demographics is full of Americans!
Seb Member	Mon Feb 20 16:09:48 Nim: It took me fifteen minutes to figure out that one point. But yeah, 100 incidents of kids engaging in sexual harassment (could be anything from wolf whistling and catcalling to whipping their dicks out, need to do more digging) is very, very different from rape. And given the stats conssitently show from victim reports that one in five to one in four women in the west have been sexually assaulted, most often by a close friend of the family or family - I'd argue that yes, the fact that 80% of perps that commit sexual harassment are unlikely to represent 80% of rapes and sexual assaults. "EXPLICITLY say that immigrants are over-represented" Right, so 14% of sweden is foreign born, 65% from outside the EU. So that's 9%. Over represented would just need to be >9%. Hugely over represented would be 18%. It's not that France (Paris actually) is hugely different, but rather that you are starting from a conclusion and working backwards to find supporting evidence, plugging any gaps with assumptions and appeals to common sense. Earlier, you argued about the rise in offences correlating with immigration, but we can already see that even taking your figures, immigration cannot account for the totality of the rise. It's really simple Nim, if you are correct, the data will explicitly show that. If the data do not explicitly show that, then you don't have evidence for your position - which means it's a theory not a fact - which is dangerous. Pretty much every time in history that we start targeting a minority, people produce lots of lovely stats that are not even lies - just misleading. cf. Feynmann on fooling ones self.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 21 02:00:57 >>But yeah, 100 incidents of kids engaging in sexual harassment (could be anything from wolf whistling and catcalling to whipping their dicks out, need to do more digging) is very, very different from rape.<< Unable to to see the forest for all the trees it seems. The repeating patterns in bathhouses, music festivals, official police states and statements. Are you daft for real? The entire pointless point of my discussion with you was to show how the different views in Islamic culture vs Liberal western cultures leads to immigrants from these countries being over-represented in sexual offenses. How the Islamic view on women and sexuality leads to young Muslim (even nominally so) to view western women as whores. FFS this is why I stopped responding in parsed paragraphs in walls of text, because you get so bogged down in minced word that you forget what the topic was about! >>Earlier, you argued about the rise in offences correlating with immigration<< Point out where I said this. I am perfectly aware of the crime trends in Sweden, (decreasing nationally, increasing sharply in certain areas). My point consistently has been that immigrants from Muslims majority countries are over-represented in sexual offenses and that recently we have seen a rise in "dark alley" rapes and public sexual offenses. As you may know this is not the common type of rape in the west. Incidentally this is perfectly in line with the argument that Muslims have a hard time dealing with the very open and public sexual culture here. But sure keep digging :) Just to summarize for everyone else reading this thread. I gave 9 links to prove my point regarding Islamic culture and sexual offenses, which now seb wants to narrow down to rape, go ahead go and read the beginning of the thread. 8 of them convey the same message, immigrants are over-represented in serious offenses like rape and 1 is a UN study which shows that rape is twice as likely in cultures where inequality is normalized. Seb's response so far. THIS ONE IS IN BATH HOUSES!!! FOUL! PARIS IS FULL OF AMERICANS! SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS NOT RAPE! FOUL! I won't stoop to that level seb, like I wont with the people calling Hot Rod a pedophile, but I understand why they say it. I mean it would only be fair, considering all the shit you have called me. But no not beyond this passive aggressive mention of it ;)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 21 02:03:47 immigrants are over-represented in *sexual offenses and serious offenses like rape* Before he parses the words and another Feynman quote that will prove me wrong!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 21 02:10:26 >>Pretty much every time in history that we start targeting a minority<< Are Muslims a minority in Egypt? "In Algeria and Tunisia, the law allows rapists to escape prosecution by marrying their teenage victims. Morocco recently did away with a similar law, although other laws in the country are still failing survivors of sexual violence." http://www...ce-algeria-tunisia-and-morocco Them poor minorities raping because of colonialism :,(
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 21 02:14:12 >>but rather that you are starting from a conclusion and working backwards to find supporting evidence<< Yes the conclusion made by a number of reports, and then as we continue more data is added. Some of them will be wrong, I grant you that much. Perhaps you are correct and Americans in Paris make up a big chunk of the thirty something unemployed criminals who rape and molest women. I am still undecided on that. No not really, I am biased by all the facts I have to admit.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 21 04:34:32 Nim: You are making a circular argument: An individual Muslim is more likely to be a sex offender because of his culture. We prove the cultural practice through statistics - but the statistics don't prove it exactly, so we assert that they form a pattern by claiming cultural practice. You need to actually mathematically show the relationship. Your not doing that. Your showing a few isolated vignettes and then inviting us to assume they are correlated using your hypothesis as an assumption. So, like I said, I'm going to read your report - necessarily slowly as it's in a foreign language - and see if the statistics bares that out. This is not unreasonable.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 21 04:41:31 Nim: Doesn't it strike you as contradictory that you are arguing that cultural differences drive different behaviour, but that Swedish patterns of sexual abuse should match immigrants patterns of abuse, this allowing extrapolation of one narrow crime - harassment - and setting - public baths - to all other sexual crime in Sweden. That would be quite odd wouldn't it: that the only way that Swedes and immigrants are alike are in patterns of abuse (though not frequency), when your argument hinges on different cultural practices? If you are arguing that immigrant boys are coming from a culture that condones sexual harassment, vs. Sweden where it does not - doesn't that suggest Swedish sex pests will avoid doing things in areas where they might be caught, driving very different patterns of abbuse?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Feb 21 06:38:31 >>We prove the cultural practice through statistics - but the statistics don't prove it exactly, so we assert that they form a pattern by claiming cultural practice.<< We prove the cultural practice by OBSERVING IT in practice and in writing in the Muslim countries and everywhere else Muslims live. >>You need to actually mathematically show the relationship<< This goes back to your inability to view Muslims as equals so you demand obscenely high standards of evidence. Remember that time you called that white guy a pedophile enabler? No link, no nothing, you literally heard something on the news and gave us a paragraph. "UN study, rape is twice as likely in cultures where inequality is normalized" "Nordic stats, immigrants commit more sexual offenses." Seb: I just don't see it, I don't see the connection. >>Your showing a few isolated vignettes<< lol, yea isolated across 4 countries, in official stats and police summaries, several studies in the official stats btw, in bath houses, music festivals and in the streets, assault rapes, gang rapes all show the same thing. What is it called in statistics when all the studies show the same thing? Significant? >>This is not unreasonable.<< You have been nothing but unreasonable when it has come to the topic of Islam and the belief/behavior process. >>you are arguing that cultural differences drive different behaviour, but that Swedish patterns of sexual abuse should match immigrants patterns of abuse<< What O.o? I am saying cultural differences drive different behavior and that THIS IS EXACTLY why swedish and immigrants patterns of sexual criminal behavior IS DIFFERENT. ffs that is the entire premise of what I am saying! >>harassment - and setting - public baths - to all other sexual crime in Sweden.<< Harassment and rape, the numbers show this clearly. I am not extrapolating sexual harassment to rape, the numbers show this, officials state this. I have no idea what the rest of the last post even means. People report sexual offenses and in Sweden they report them to a much higher degree than elsewhere, victim blaming is a much lesser problem here. Whether the perp was Swede or not the victim can go to the police and file a report.
Seb Member	Tue Feb 21 15:01:32 Nim: "We prove the cultural practice by OBSERVING IT in practice and in writing in the Muslim countries and everywhere else Muslims live." If you can truly observe it, you can quantify it properly. This idea that you can sort of sense it from a take on the culture - and sod an actual analysis - ends up with "Well whose doing all the Raping if not the Mexicans?" nonsense. "Seb: I just don't see it, I don't see the connection." Now Nim, I have said several times I will review your document. So that is just a lie and you know it. "yea isolated across 4 countries, in official stats and police summaries" I hate to be a party pooper but since you have made the forceful comment above, I shall make a forceful comment back: Lets take the supposed "French" statistics. Note, you provided statistics of Paris, referred to it as France as a whole, and nowhere within those statistics was there any resolvable information about Islam, or nationals of Islam majority countries. That evidence therefore CANNOT support your conclusion. You left it for the reader to infer that foreigner was a proxy for such, even though most foreigners in question were actually from Europe and the US. That is either incompetent or dishonest. Challenged on this fact - rather than simply withdraw and perhaps admit that you sort of forgot that there were other types of foreigner, including, you know, anyone who isn't French (Portugese, British, Swedish for example) and that it actually contains no resolving power; instead you you ask me, basically, to assume that it must be the Muslims segment of the followers because hey, Muslim cultures are sexist and misogynistic (though we know from statistics that so are western ones in practice too). Which is a circular argument. Come on! Are you serious? To call that a non-sequitur would be kind. It would best be described as "not even wrong", or "a joke". This is a classic example of confirmation bias - where you are so confident of the conclusion, you start to mistake things as supporting evidence which are not, ignoring alternative interpretations or explanations. Is it any wonder I insist on reviewing it, because you clearly can't be trusted to present evidence properly. And then, despite this, you accuse me of being unreasonable for not accepting your position without actual evidence. "I am not extrapolating sexual harassment to rape" So, when I point out that the fact that just because 80% of people who in a public bath engage in sexual harassment are young male refugees from Islamic countries, it does not follow that this statistic would apply for rape in general, you said: "Because the one about bath houses is so different from the other ones you mean? There is no pattern here?" What, exactly, is the pattern? Because I maintain from that piece of data, you cannot infer any pattern reliably. It could be the case that while said individuals feel it's ok to do that, they don't think it is ok to rape. And because most native Swedes know that this is not socially accepted, they don't do it, but many are still quite happy to grope or rape women when they think they are not in the public eye. In fact, this seems very likely to me - though we would need supporting evidence to test the hypothesis. So all in all, no, I don't think that factoid alone tells me how significant refugees have been to Sweden's overall sexual offences. It is perfectly possible for Refugees to be over represented, but not terribly significant over all on the overall incidence and it's trends. And again, because you chose to present things that are not even tangentially relevant (like the Paris stats), and then refuse to even acknowledge that - yeah - that makes it necessary to review what you post quite carefully: too much confidence bias in your evidence not to.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 22 01:37:35 So I decided to attempt to answer your paragraphed wall of text, unfortunately I did not get far. >>"Asked and answered, multiple times with multiple posters across many threads. The old testament has NEVER been a book for Christians or even Jews to live according to." I'm sorry, but that's simply not true.<< We know as a matter of history that supersessionism has been the dominant view across the overwhelming majority of Christians sect, Catholics and protestants. Only a tiny minority believe that Mosaic laws still apply in full. Supersessionism is also largely to blame for the anti-semitism found in Christians of Europe. >>your insistence that every Christian sect is a proponent of New Covenant Theology isn't correct.<< You also seem confused over what "consensus" means. >>Unlike you, perhaps<< Unlike you, I was born in the Islamic republic and during my first couple of years in Sweden my family was courted by a variety of Churches ranging from "Svenska Missions Kyrkan" and "Jehovas witness". I went to sunday school and was a member of: http://en....a_Missionskyrkans_Ungdom_Scout I even went through a phase when I thought I was Christian in my 20's having befriended many 7th day Adventists. So no, I'm sorry, you have shit on me. --------------- While I am sure you mean well, this is a level of ignorance, misrepresentation and obscurantism on your part that it borders on malevolence. And you keep hammering these points through out the post, trying to equate Christianity and it's history with Islams. There are 2 people on this forum that I will defer knowledge to on the topic of Islam. Arab who knows his religion better than I do obviously and Rugian who like me has an interest in ME and Islamic history. If I have misrepresented Islam, the history and religion I stand corrected. Point them out please. I am not going to take part in this game with you. We are rehashing things we have talked about in prior threads and this has become evolution vs young earth levels of futility.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 22 03:10:29 "it does not follow that this statistic would apply for rape in general, you said" first number is for swedes, second for children to immigrants, third is for those born outside of Sweden. sexual offenses 0,15 - 0,23 - 0,49 rape/attempted rape 0,04 - 0,08 - 0,22 >>What, exactly, is the pattern?<< Yes what is the pattern? When all the studies say that people born outside Sweden are more likely to be sexual offenders of any kind than those born to immigrant parents who in turn are more likely to be sexual offenders than Swedes? *shrugs* I have no idea seb, I am just here to provide you with the shovel and rope, what you decide to with them is your business.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 22 03:47:43 Nim: "We know as a matter of history that supersessionism has been the dominant view across the overwhelming majority of Christians sect, Catholics and protestants. Only a tiny minority believe that Mosaic laws still apply in full." I'm not arguing they are retained *in full*. I explained the difference between moral, judicial and ceremonial laws. You are implicitly arguing that they have been superceded in full. Would you regard Thomas Aquinas as a minority view? You should read up on his view on this. Where do 10 commandments come from? Are they still a prominent feature of Christianity? Christian's fought bloody wars over idolatory, one of the 10 commandments. You surely don't think Moses a new testament figure? To give just one example. "You also seem confused over what "consensus" means" Let's see, of the major Christian groupings, Anglican, catholic, orthodox - none believe that the entirety of the mosaic laws were replaced in full. They *all* agree moral laws stand. 7th day Adventists and Jehovas witnesses are both minority groups. Ironically the 7th day Adventists do believe strongly in the continuity of mosaic law, and doesn't distinguish between ceremonial and moral law to the degree others do. You'll recall the president of the African Adventist church supported the Ugandan anti homosexually law in 2012 that called for death penalty for repeat offenders. They get all that from the old testament. Looks like you missed that bit. Perhaps the Swedish Adventists put a different emphasis on such things... which is my point: practice, not doctrine. And you call me ignorant!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 22 04:25:20 >>I explained the difference between moral, judicial and ceremonial laws.<< And yet utterly fail to comprehend the practical difference and societal impact of a religion who tells the adherents to follow MORAL LAWS (Christianity) compared to one who institutes divinely mandated JUDICIAL laws (Islamic Sharia) to be followed? Yes Christians might WANT to impose their moral laws on society and they can try, but there is little in the way of support in their text, history, lack of precedence and the extensive legal framework that Islam has accumulated over 1400 years. Islam did not evolve in parallel to the state, it WAS the state from the moment Muhammed invented the Caliphate. There is no line in The Quran that even remotely resembles "render unto caesar.." allowing for the co-existence of state and church, because this distinction is never made in Islam. I am sorry, you are ignorant.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 22 04:29:57 Nim: Sorry, is there a moral law that says, generally, "Rape women" in Islam? Your entire argument is that a general culture of misogyny blah blah. I pointed out the same cultural artefacts exist in Christianity and have been moderated not by religion but by society moderating religious practice which is then later justified by scholars. There is virtually no case I can think of where Christianity has liberalised a moral view ahead of society at large moderating its view. And then to defend your argument that the OT moral and judicial codes are obsolete, you cited seventh day adventists, the leader of a substantial grouping within that arguing for the religious basis for death penalty of homosexuals based on OT law only four years ago. How am I supposed to take this seriously?
Seb Member	Wed Feb 22 04:30:00 Nim: Sorry, is there a moral law that says, generally, "Rape women" in Islam? Your entire argument is that a general culture of misogyny blah blah. I pointed out the same cultural artefacts exist in Christianity and have been moderated not by religion but by society moderating religious practice which is then later justified by scholars. There is virtually no case I can think of where Christianity has liberalised a moral view ahead of society at large moderating its view. And then to defend your argument that the OT moral and judicial codes are obsolete, you cited seventh day adventists, the leader of a substantial grouping within that arguing for the religious basis for death penalty of homosexuals based on OT law only four years ago. How am I supposed to take this seriously?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 22 04:51:49 >>Sorry, is there a moral law that says, generally, "Rape women" in Islam?<< OMFG YES YOU DUMB FUCK!!! I told you that the PROPHET HIMSELF RAPED WOMEN AND TOOK SEX SLAVES! There is plenty of historical precedence for taking NON-MUSLIM women as sex slaves!! And you dismissed this as meaningless!!! MUHAMMED!! THE PERSON MUSLIMS ARE TO EMULATE BECAUSE HE WAS PERFECT!!! This IS the fucking definition of ignorance! And then you add that Muslims are taught how a good Muslim women behaves and dresses modestly. They come to Sweden and see all these infidel "whores" in their skimpy dresses getting drunk. lol fucking forget it. My patience has ended with your idiocy.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 22 05:14:56 You know why this embarrassment has befallen you? Because you are ignorant of the fact that Islamic Sharia, the legal code that has governed pretty much all aspects of life in the Islamic world for 1400 years is based on what Muhammed DID and SAID.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 22 05:17:03 Nim: So you are saying that in general, rape is *always* condoned in Islam against non Islamic women in all circumstances? Or did you miss the "general" part there. It's funny, I know many Muslims. None agree that this is the case. And even if one did feel that there is exceptional circumstances, that's very different from a judicial obligation to do so. I've heard other Muslims reconcile this pointing out that as guests, their obligation to observe laws of their hosts means they are required to obey those laws even if there was a religious permission to do something (but not an obligation). This is much the same as Christians who admit homosexuality is a sin, but that they are under no obligation to punish it. So let's see: *Conflating prohibitions, permissions and obligations - *presenting a historical accounts of western moral development, *Erroneous statements on Christianity views on moral law *Citing a faction that actually does the opposite of your claim, advocating very old testament moral law be enshrined in judicial law *Miss representing statistics. You can deflate you are done, but you won't concede the documented gaping flaws in your own argument. It kinda looks like you are dishonestly running away. Sorry Nim, that's not something I can respect.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 22 05:18:02 I'm not embarrassed. You should be. Projection is fooling nobody though.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 22 07:17:07 >>Sorry, is there a moral law that says, generally, "Rape women" in Islam?<< >>So you are saying that in general, rape is *always* condoned in Islam against non Islamic women in all circumstances?<< lol you motherfucker, this is the second time you revise your own fucking lie! First you throw in "generally" and then "always". This is on the level of "have you stopped beating your wife?" You booby trap your posts? You intentionally broaden the scope of what I am saying to catch me? I don't give a shit that YOU have shifted the posts to me saying that ALL muslims generally rape ALWAYS. Anyone interested can go back and see the exact things I have said and the official stats supplied to show how big or small the issue is. >>I'm not embarrassed.<< Of course, of course, I forgot that your kind enjoys being humiliated.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 22 07:25:06 Sorry 3 times, you revised your lie 3 times. "Generally", "always" and then "all circumstances". I just want to show the evolution of YOUR deranged understanding of my position. Watch this and keep in kind that this you telling me what my position is. >>An individual Muslim is more likely to be a sex offender because of his culture.<< >>Sorry, is there a moral law that says, generally, "Rape women" in Islam?<< >>So you are saying that in general, rape is *always* condoned in Islam against non Islamic women in all circumstances?<< Go get raped by a gang of wild Muslims!
Seb Member	Wed Feb 22 09:30:16 Nim: "Rape women" is a fucking imperative voice Nim - are you agreeing now that you have not provided a religious imperative to rape? Does the fact that the prophet took sex slaves in wartime mean that generally, Muslims have an obligation to rape non Muslim women? Or does it mean that in some circumstances it's permissible? Because if the latter, it is far from clear that you can ascribe rapes committed by people from Muslim countries on theology rather than the general background of misogyny the permeates pretty much every culture (including the West). I escalated from generally to always because you dishonestly cited permission in narrow circumstance. My plan was to work you back down again because your being obtuse. The sound and fury is you being forced to conceed. I doubt that young refugee boys in Swedish public baths are thinking "Well chaps, Sweden is dar al-harb so we can, no must, take those girls as sex slaves as the prophet showed" If you are arguing that in some edge cases there is some religious justification - is that really relevant for general behaviour? It's like blaming queer bashing on the Bible. Queer bashers will find their justification. Others - most others in fact - will find ways to ignore any apparent obligation or better yet, understand permission does not imply obligation. Ignoring other interpretations of course. Like: http://www...-or-islamophobes-a6875446.html
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 22 12:11:13 >>Does the fact that the prophet took sex slaves in wartime mean that generally, Muslims have an obligation to rape non Muslim women? Or does it mean that in some circumstances it's permissible?<< I have in the past explained that the grievance narrative is an integral part of what is going on. Large numbers of Muslims feel that they are in conflict with the west. They feel a resentment towards the societies where their enclaves are isolated in. You earlier asked a question (which I have answered in a previous thread) whether the 80% in Egypt who responded that apostasy should be punished with death would all grab the knife and kill. Obviously not, but far more will than if 8% had answered yes. Those 80% are all part of the same fucking problem, they all gave the wrong answer and the idea that apostates should be killed is normalized in their society. The same idea applies here, the misogynistic values are normalized. Sexuality is a fundamental drive and central to our lives and the teachings of religions. Someone does not have to be a fundamentalist Christian to be a pro-lifer. Likewise I don't have to be a Islamist, a believer or even a Muslim for many of the ideas and values that are prevalent in the Islamic country or society that I am living for them to color my understanding and shape my values. You want to hear me speak in absolute, finite terms. These are your delusion. >>misogyny the permeates pretty much every culture (including the West).<< UN study "rape is twice as likely in cultures where inequality is normalized". Your unwillingness to accept that there are wildly different degrees to hell, is a problem that you will have to deal with. >>My plan was to work you back down again because your being obtuse.<< Of course, of course. It was your plan all along. This like beating a retarded kid. >>Ignoring other interpretations of course.<< Consensus, majority, dumbass. I can find any interpretation of any ideology. I can find you nazi jews. What exactly does that prove? That this is the consensus view among Jews? Every stupid argument is from the regressive apologetic playbook. Nothing else was worth the typing to respond to.
Seb Member	Wed Feb 22 13:19:12 Nim: "Obviously not, but far more will than if 8% had answered yes." That is far from obvious actually. Killing someone is psychologically hard. Generally, I would expect that the proportion of people who would kill someone for apostasy is set by the proportion of people that would kill someone period. So while the number of people who would kill someone for Apostasy might be higher in Egypt, than say, another equivalent country (i.e. where other factors linked to propensity to kill are equally prevalent), it is only because their rationale is Apostasy rather than some other rationale. E.g. honour killing or some such. And while MANY may agree that religion requires death for Apostasay, they themselves will not trouble themselves. "the misogynistic values are normalized." As they still are in some parts of our society, and pretty much every society on the planet that isn't a product of Liberalism. "Your unwillingness to accept that there are wildly different degrees to hell," No, we are not arguing that there are different degrees of hell, I am arguing as to what is the cause of that hell. You are acting as though normalised Misogony is somehow uniquely Islamic - as though there are not gang rape gangs in India, views throughout Latin America that immodestly dressed women are up for it etc. etc. etc. ". This like beating a retarded kid." Yeah, obviously, that's why you have completely ignored me pointing out that you: *Conflating prohibitions, permissions and obligations *presenting a historical accounts of western moral development, *Erroneous statements on Christianity views on moral law *Citing a faction that actually does the opposite of your claim, advocating very old testament moral law be enshrined in judicial law *Miss representing statistics. And now you are engaging in some rather trite straw man arguments while ratcheting up your language to include things like accusing me of lying when it's very clear that I'm not. I don't think anyone's fooled Nim (largely because aside from you and me, it's likely nobody else is paying attention). "What exactly does that prove?" Going back to our original point, that you cannot tell much about someones behaviour just from knowing their religion, so religious profiling isn't really sensible or useful.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 22 13:55:39 >>That is far from obvious actually.<< Every instance of ethnic cleansing, every remorseful returning jihadi standing trial for war crimes begs to differ. This is such blatant ignorance on human psychology and how easily and quickly people dehumanize others and normalize violence. http://www...nd-mass-killing-guest-lecture/ >>You are acting as though normalised Misogony is somehow uniquely Islamic<< Different degrees dumbass. Different degrees. But sure keep insisting that the entire world is a grey mass and that nothing can be distinguished from anything else. >>That's why you have completely ignored me pointing out that you<< Everytime you say something new that I feel I need to deal with I will do so. I am not going to rehash old shit. I don't owe you my sanity and don't have to bash my head against your wall of stupid. Our good friend WTB once said something and I have to give him credit for it. I am avoiding some of your "arguments" yes, like any sane person would avoid stepping in dog shit. If I try to explain something for you 7-8 times and each time I provide detail this happens: >>An individual Muslim is more likely to be a sex offender because of his culture.<< >>Sorry, is there a moral law that says, generally, "Rape women" in Islam?<< >>So you are saying that in general, rape is *always* condoned in Islam against non Islamic women in all circumstances?<< i.e my position because more and more extreme and narrow inside your delusional mind. Then when you are called out on it, you tell me "it was my plan all along", I would call that person a lying malevolent lunatic.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Feb 22 14:12:13 The phenomena in the link is so widely studied in the different fields of behavioral science that it really is another notch on the list embarrassingly stupid and ignorant things you have said in this thread. And that is mass murder, ethnic cleansing and extermination. What the fuck is pussy grabbing and raping compared to that. Are people working in abattoirs deranged or is it accepted in most cultures that farm animals do not have the same rights as humans, they are food. You notice that in most instances of ethnic cleansing this is exactly what is done, for the very reasons you mention. People DO have a hard time killing other humans, but they also have a very easy time stripping others of their humanity. Before you say something retarded again, like me saying that this is uniquely an Islamic problem. Think really hard on what I have said about different degrees and the different consequences and that cultures are not the same. How I have no issues providing examples of this in other cultures and how this only becomes an issue for you when I do it for Islam.
Seb Member	Thu Feb 23 04:50:51 Nim: "Every instance of ethnic cleansing, every remorseful returning jihadi standing trial for war crimes begs to differ" In other words, "waaah, anecdotes! I can't prove my case with actual evidence so shall paint a picture instead, making speculations about the inner workings of peoples mind for which I have no substantive evidence so must again resort to hand waving" "Different degrees dumbass. Different degrees" So, south Africa then? Highest rape incidence in the world. Not exactly known as a hot bed of Islamism. "Everytime you say something new that I feel I need to deal with I will do so." So you feel you don't need to deal with: *Posting statistics that do not remotely support the things you claim *Citing a religious group that believes the opposite of your claim *Talking bullshit about the development of Liberal values in the west, implying they come from christianity rather than moderated Christianity. Yeah, yeah, can see why you'd like to pretend those have no value. That's not sanity Nim, that's just spouting bullshit. "y position because more and more extreme and narrow inside your delusional mind" No, it's really very simple and I'm unsurprised you don't want to see it. You keep flip flopping back and forth. You have various argued that refugees in Sweden are more likely to commit rape *because* of their religion. You have utterly failed to show the causal link there, and in fact on a couple of occasions have posted statistics that are wholley unrelated. Your argument has oscilated back and forth, citing examples where rape (actually prohibited generally in Islam) is said to be permissible - but not mandatory - and tried to argue that this creates a general culture of mysogyny. When I pointed out that even religious individuals practice is often different to the letter of teachings, drawing a comparison with Christianity. Then you shifted tack, you argued that Christianity had dispensed with old testament law and Christ meant that there was no need to enforce moral laws through religious laws. I then pointed out that actually no mainstream sect had ditched the old testament, many still kept moral and judicial laws; and for about 1800 years (and to this day!) Christian sects do indeed want to judicially enforce old testament moral laws. Rather, it was the fact that people distanced themselves from the moral rules and then invented reasons not to do them. I.e. cultural practice trumps religious doctrine (and has in the Islamic world previously too). You claimed the opposite, and cited as proof of your religious knowledge, a particular group - 7th day adventists - that are one of the groups that more strongly believe old testament law still stands, and a major leader of that grouping actually supported *a law that would sentence homosexuals to death* on religious grounds only a few years ago. At some points you started trying to argue that Islam - lacking a distinction between moral and judicial religious law - is different from Christianity. Moral laws are judicial laws are not differentiated. But then you have weaseled out of definitively answering whether your much cited example of Mohammed taking sex slaves in war is an *obligation* or merely permissible - which is of course critical: it is possible for most muslims to ignore the latter. Which brings us back to the basic contention: Are people from Muslim countries more misogynistic than the global norm, and is this because of their religion? Given the range of sexual assault and harassment stats (not that inter judicial comparisons are statistically robust) - I see little evidence for this. To the extent that refugees have higher incidents of these - it is unlikely that it is because they are muslim. It is more likely that it is because they come from less equal societies than the west (which is basically pretty much any country without at least 50 years of liberal tradition), it is because they largely come from a society that has been exceptionally violent due to civil conflict during their entire lives, and because they are young. The fact it takes a single generation for Muslims in the west to - while still believing themselves to be proper Muslims - adopt strikingly different attitudes to women - convincingly demonstrates it has sweet fuck all to do with Islam. Just as western demands of sexual equality have sweet fuck all to do with Christianity (which is full of stuff that has for most of history been interpreted to be about women being the property of their husband), and Christianity has been re-interpreted to match the prevailing cultural practice. Practice is what matters. Not the letter of the law. Which is precisely my critique of Dawkins and Hitchens tiresome haranguing about Christianity. As for the charge they were critiquing the concept of God - that's ludicrous. They didn't believe God exists. God exists only as a concept in the mind of the believer, so focusing on a textual analysis of what God says and does rather than what the believer understands him to have said and done and his motivations is the height of madness.
SEb Member	Thu Feb 23 05:23:00 Nim: Do you think the mechanisms behind Genocide etc. are really relevant in, say, your pool example? Most genocides are deliberately organised, and strident efforts are made to normalise it in order to mobilise the necessary manpower. Within that context, yes, there are coping mechanisms etc. But to argue that this phenomenon underpins every phenomenon is laughable. As I've pointed out, where are the "reluctant" Muslims who are raping women because they are "just following orders"? And to come full circle, if you think we don't so the same in the west you are kidding yourself: the actual reason the police refused to intervene was because they deicded the girls were not victims, but prostitutes unworthy of police time.
Seb Member	Thu Feb 23 05:34:17 If rape is a cultural norm among Muslims (as ethnic hatred and obligation to kill in a genocide), why is rape a hugely minority activity Nim? If you want to compare Muslims acculturation to rape as comparable to the mobilised, propagandised perpetrators of genocide for whom murder has been normalised - there's obviously a significant gulf. And normally in genocides - unlike say, rape in free societies - you can't choose to ignore any aspect of religious doctrine that you find uncomfortable. Quite often there are concerted efforts to dip everyone's hand in blood, and failure to conform/participate normally marks you out for punishment. The comparison is absurd.
Forwyn Member	Thu Feb 23 11:13:19 "why is rape a hugely minority activity Nim?" *citation needed
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Feb 23 11:48:09 >>Are people from Muslim countries more misogynistic than the global norm<< http://en....er_Inequality_Distribution.svg Good bye you deranged cuckold.
SEb Member	Thu Feb 23 13:45:49 Nim: Ah, so you are a fascist after all!
SEb Member	Thu Feb 23 13:51:58 I suppose the fact that posting a map that has a bunch of non Muslim countries in Africa in the bright red category would seem to be perfectly in line with your idiosyncratic attempt to prove your points by posting evidence to the contrary. Yes, there are a lot of Muslim countries that have misogynistic cultures. Nobodies denying that. But attributing it to Islam seems odd when you look and see that Islam isn't particularly exceptional. Pretty much ever country without a long tradition of liberalism is the wrong side of 0.5 How the fuck South Africa scores so high when it is the rape capital of the world frankly baffles me.
werewolf dictator Member	Thu Feb 23 14:06:53 it's because of the white minority tbs
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: