Society/Culture Why I blame Islam for the fact it's raining today.... part 2

[Chief]

Reminder: This isn't the Israel/Hamas thread. Go to the Israel/Hamas thread if you want to talk about that. Thanks.

Mid East - Israel declare war after Hamas attack II

Part I: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/israel-declare-war-after-hamas-attack.1371828/page-47#post-81443295 Thread Rules: Alright. I recognise that this is a fraught topic for any number of you posting here. Some of you will have family in Israel or Palestine. Some of you will have...

www.bigfooty.com

Thread rules update:

From this point if you're going to make a connection between Islam and the crime rate, you need to demonstrate causation in your post. If you do not, I'm going to infract you for the inherent racism in the position you're taking.

 

[Number37]

I'm not sure if the desert states of the middle east are the best place to look for rain causing muslims. We should try Malaysia and Indonesia.

Wait, are you saying Islam isn't to blame for the rain??
If that is what you're saying then you are just an islam apologist and probably support terrorism and the introduction of sharia law.

 

[Malifice]

30+ years. Compare birth rates of Muslims to native Europeans in Europe. Muslim birth rates are 52% higher than their native European counterparts.

Sure, it may take longer than 30 years but they'll get there eventually.

Assuming those birth rates remain high, and European birth rates remain low.

A more likely scenario is that after a generation or two, the Muslim population will more closely mirror the native European population, due to assimilation.

They'll get jobs, HDI will increase, poverty will decrease, and birthrates will decrease alongside that assimilation.

Birth rates are high at the moment, due to the fact that most recent arrivals to Europe from Muslim majority countries come from the developing world, where higher birthrates are common (regardless of religion, see India and Sub-Saharan Africa).

In developed countries (regardless of religion, for example Japan) birthrates decrease in proportion to HDI.

I would assume the same phenomena among Europe's Muslim population after a few generations (a decrease in birth rates, to more closely align with the birth rates of their non-Muslim neighbors).

Finally, what do 'birth rates' have to do with criticism of the religion?

You seem to be critical of immigration, not Islam.

 

[faible]

Assuming those birth rates remain high, and European birth rates remain low.

A more likely scenario is that after a generation or two, the Muslim population will more closely mirror the native European population, due to assimilation.

They'll get jobs, HDI will increase, poverty will decrease, and birthrates will decrease alongside that assimilation.

Birth rates are high at the moment, due to the fact that most recent arrivals to Europe from Muslim majority countries come from the developing world, where higher birthrates are common (regardless of religion, see India and Sub-Saharan Africa).

In developed countries (regardless of religion, for example Japan) birthrates decrease in proportion to HDI.

I would assume the same phenomena among Europe's Muslim population after a few generations (a decrease in birth rates, to more closely align with the birth rates of their non-Muslim neighbors).

Finally, what do 'birth rates' have to do with criticism of the religion?

You seem to be critical of immigration, not Islam.

I assume he's fine with immigration of say, white South African farmers.

 

[evolved2]

I assume he's fine with immigration of say, white South African farmers.

It's always about skin color with you.

 

[sr36]

Wait, are you saying Islam isn't to blame for the rain??
If that is what you're saying then you are just an islam apologist and probably support terrorism and the introduction of sharia law.

You've got it wrong. It's basic geography. Muslims from heavy rain fall countries like Malaysia and Indonesia cause rain and floods. Arabs and Afghans cause drought.

 

[Number37]

You've got it wrong. It's basic geography. Muslims from heavy rain fall countries like Malaysia and Indonesia cause rain and floods. Arabs and Afghans cause drought.

So when we have drought we blame the Muslims and when we have floods we blame the Muslims.
How do you propose we blame Muslims when it's not flooding or drought?
Are there any Muslims from temperate climates we can blame for good weather?

 

[bzparkes]

Assuming those birth rates remain high, and European birth rates remain low.

A more likely scenario is that after a generation or two, the Muslim population will more closely mirror the native European population, due to assimilation.

They'll get jobs, HDI will increase, poverty will decrease, and birthrates will decrease alongside that assimilation.

Maybe, I certainly hope so.

Birth rates are high at the moment, due to the fact that most recent arrivals to Europe from Muslim majority countries come from the developing world, where higher birthrates are common (regardless of religion, see India and Sub-Saharan Africa).

In developed countries (regardless of religion, for example Japan) birthrates decrease in proportion to HDI.

All true, valid points.

I would assume the same phenomena among Europe's Muslim population after a few generations (a decrease in birth rates, to more closely align with the birth rates of their non-Muslim neighbors).

Finally, what do 'birth rates' have to do with criticism of the religion?

I'm critical of any group who demands special privileges and calls you a bigot/phobic when you expect them to abide by the same rules as anyone else.

Let's consider an example from last year's AFLW season, for instance.

Muslim GWS player refuses to take part in Pride round. Everyone is 'understanding' due to her beliefs, or at least afraid to call her out on it.

If she was a Christian woman instead, she'd be lambasted from pillar to post for it. Just look at what happened to Israel Folau, for instance.

Both groups are right-wing but for some reason, one of them gets massive support from the left. It's weird and I don't get it.

I ****ing hate double-standards(if I've shown it in this thread, please feel free to call me out).

You seem to be critical of immigration, not Islam.

I'm critical of mass immigration of undocumented, mostly uneducated people.

If an educated person wants to apply to come to a country(or a partner of a citizen), then that's fine with me. I don't care where they're from or what religion they adhere to, as long as they respect the local culture and laws first and foremost.

The issue with what's happening in Europe(and this is a thread about Islam in particular), is that Muslims are far more prone to radical extremism than other mainstream religions.

Letting millions of undocumented and mostly uneducated people who are prone to extremism(and I'm not for a second suggesting other migrant groups don't cause issues either), from a culture significantly different to the incumbent natives, is bound to cause issues and an increase in nationalism.

Now, flip the roles and it were Europeans fleeing into Islamic nations and I'd have the exact same opinion.

But apparently when you have general observations that aren't always in a positive light about an ethnic/religious group, that automatically makes you = Bigot.

 

[bzparkes]

I assume he's fine with immigration of say, white South African farmers.

Sure I would.

I'd also be happy with black South African farmers, because they're not the ones generally running around ****ing up the country.

Both groups would have to agree and adhere to Australian values, like any immigrant.

It's not about race but clearly that point is lost on the hand-wringers in this thread.

 

[faible]

It's always about skin color with you.

Dutton wants to bring 'persecuted' white South African farmers to Australia

White farmers facing violence in South Africa "deserve special attention" from Australia, Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton says, but the South African Government says its citizens are not in danger.

www.abc.net.au

 

[bzparkes]

Dutton wants to bring 'persecuted' white South African farmers to Australia

White farmers facing violence in South Africa "deserve special attention" from Australia, Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton says, but the South African Government says its citizens are not in danger.

www.abc.net.au

Well, 2 things.

1. Dutton's an idiot and has a history of making such comments, which can be taken as racist.

2. White South African farmers have been murdered in droves for many years, so the corrupt SA government suggesting they're not in danger is a complete joke.

 

[faible]

Well, 2 things.

1. Dutton's an idiot and has a history of making such comments, which can be taken as racist.

2. White South African farmers have been murdered in droves for many years, so the corrupt SA government suggesting they're not in danger is a complete joke.

The bolded is probably the nicest thing anyone has ever said about Dutton

 

[bzparkes]

The bolded is probably the nicest thing anyone has ever said about Dutton

Well, he's a prick known for making racist comments, so...

 

[Malifice]

Both groups are right-wing but for some reason, one of them gets massive support from the left. It's weird and I don't get it.

Left wing people support the right of Muslims to practice their faith and be left alone. Just like we do with Christians, Jews, Buddhists or anyone else.

If Muslims, Jews, Christians or anyone else seek to harm other people, we take a stand.

Just like we do when Right wing flogs seek to demonize or persecute an entire minority group of people based on their faith.

Do you for example have any doubt that Usman Kawaja or Bachar Houli is not Australian or hasn't assimilated just fine? How do you think they feel every time he sees some Right wing flog talking about 'banning Muslim immigration' or 'birth rates' or witnesses constant media depictions of Muslims as wide eyed bearded fanatics, or reads the comments section of literally any paper discussing Islam, or witnesses 50 odd Muslims being massacred in Christchurch etc?

Or in Bachars case, when some dickhead unveils a 'Stop the Mosques' banner at the opening round of the footy?

They both have the right to practice their religion peacefully. It's the ********s that don't (Salafi Jihaids and their ilk) that we should be targeting, not your 'average Joe' Uber driver from Bangladesh who moved to Australia for a better life, and who also just happens to be a practicing Muslim.

Muslims have been around these parts for a while. I mean we have an entire train line called the 'Ghan' after our Afghanistan migrants back before federation for ****s sake.

I'm critical of mass immigration of undocumented, mostly uneducated people.

We don't place an education standard on refugees.

For everyone else, there is an education and documentation standard. The skilled migration visa system is quite thorough.

The issue with what's happening in Europe(and this is a thread about Islam in particular), is that Muslims are far more prone to radical extremism than other mainstream religions.

I partly agree, but if that's the case, why on earth start persecuting them?

What do you think the outcome of that is going to be? Instead, how about we leave them in peace instead, and go after the actual badcampaigners (the jihadis) instead. Most Muslim people actually loathe those radicalized ****wits as much as you or I do.

Have you spoken to a Muslim about those radicalized flogs? They dont speak highly of them at all, and in fact denounce them as un-Islamic.

But apparently when you have general observations that aren't always in a positive light about an ethnic/religious group, that automatically makes you = Bigot.

Yes, of course.

I mean that's the literal definition of racism isnt it?

Explain to me how the statement 'Ethnic group X are generally lazy fanatical shitcampaigners' is not racist?

 

[bzparkes]

Left wing people support the right of Muslims to practice their faith and be left alone. Just like we do with Christians, Jews, Buddhists or anyone else.

That's great, except most of those people are against everything the left stands for, especially if they are in the majority, which is kind of my whole point to begin with.

Give an inch, take a mile so to speak.

I'm not advocating banning or stopping them practicing their faith by the way, this is merely a general observation of things throughout history.

If Muslims, Jews, Christians or anyone else seek to harm other people, we take a stand.

Great, go wave a sign and jump on the current thing. Doesn't particularly achieve much, especially when the extremes of those 3 groups are prone to extreme violence.

Just like we do when Right wing flogs seek to demonize or persecute an entire minority group of people based on their faith.

See the previous comment.

Also, those religions you are seeking to protect are mostly full of people with right-wing beliefs.

What do you think of the hate lumped on LGBTQ+ from both Muslims and Christians? Going to stand up for them because they're demonized and persecuted by religious groups, or will you only protest the 'white' one because you wouldn't want to bee seen to 'demonize' an ethnic minority group?

Do you for example have any doubt that Usman Kawaja or Bachar Houli is not Australian or hasn't assimilated just fine? How do you think they feel every time he sees some Right wing flog talking about 'banning Muslim immigration' or 'birth rates' or witnesses constant media depictions of Muslims as wide eyed bearded fanatics, or reads the comments section of literally any paper discussing Islam, or witnesses 50 odd Muslims being massacred in Christchurch etc?

Certainly there's media outlets out there that fan the flames of hatred for clicks and it's a deplorable practice. I don't dispute that whatsoever.

How do you think LGBTQ+ feel watching the news of people being thrown off buildings in the middle-east, being gaoled, etc for being a homosexual?

What happened in Christchurch was tragic, no doubt. This pales in comparison to how many Muslims commit acts of terror upon their on kind on a weekly basis that gets no airtime on national news however, because they're killing each other, so apparently nobody really cares.

Or in Bachars case, when some dickhead unveils a 'Stop the Mosques' banner at the opening round of the footy?

Obviously a disgusting and pathetic thing to do.

They both have the right to practice their religion peacefully. It's the ********s that don't (Salafi Jihaids and their ilk) that we should be targeting, not your 'average Joe' Uber driver from Bangladesh who moved to Australia for a better life, and who also just happens to be a practicing Muslim.

Clearly but you have to be filtering migrants properly to be able to assess this, hence the issues Europe is currently facing.

I've not once said Australia has an issue with this, even though there is a very small minority of Muslims who are known to support Jihad. It's not more than any other extremist group though, so they're no more 'danger' to us than say those Neo-Nazi flogs who marched through Ballarat on the weekend.

Muslims have been around these parts for a while. I mean we have an entire train line called the 'Ghan' after our Afghanistan migrants back before federation for *s sake.

I'm aware.

We don't place an education standard on refugees.

No but they should be made to undergo regular education on Australian values/way of life and what's expected of them here, if they're not already.

Having gone through years 11 & 12 with a number of Ethiopian refugees I did note how many of them were so grateful to be here after spending years in refugee camps.

It's the ones that jump on a boat with 1k others who are, again, undocumented, that I have an issue with, because you have NFI who they are and what their allegiances are. They are the ones who need to be properly assessed to see if they are a security risk before being allowed to settle as a refugee.

I partly agree, but if that's the case, why on earth start persecuting them?

Being wary of accepting mass immigrants from people who follow a religious faith that's listed for 26 of the 29 listed terrorist organizations under the Australian Criminal Code is probably rational behaviour, I'd have thought.

Australian National Security Website

The Australian Government's first priority is to keep our community safe from people who seek to do us harm.

www.nationalsecurity.gov.au

Obviously disrespecting their faith, restricting their ability to practice it at established places of worship and deliberately inciting hatred via social media posts, caricatures, etc is a completely different story.

Their leaders don't do their public perception any good when they call for Fatwahs against people who criticize their religion in a free country however.

If you move to a country where free speech is a core principle of theirs, you don't get to call for violence against someone who is critical of certain aspects of your culture.

You can disagree with it and call for a debate and try to prove your point. Inciting violence only proves theirs though.

What do you think the outcome of that is going to be? Instead, how about we leave them in peace instead, and go after the actual badcampaigners (the jihadis) instead. Most Muslim people actually loathe those radicalized *******s as much as you or I do.

That'd be great but the greatest change needs to come within their own community.

It's not the responsibility of the 'white man' to attempt to solve the Jihadi issue, it's up to the Muslims themselves. You'd think they would want to, considering they are the main victims of such deeds. Unlikely to happen anytime soon though, as the divide between Sunni's and Shiite's is too big and has gone on for far too long.

Have you spoken to a Muslim about those radicalized flogs? They dont speak highly of them at all, and in fact denounce them as un-Islamic.

That's fine but words are just farts in the wind if no action is taken.

Yes, of course.

I mean that's the literal definition of racism isnt it?

Explain to me how the statement 'Ethnic group X are generally lazy fanatical shitcampaigners' is not racist?

Well, for me, pretty sure the only group I directly suggested that about was the Polish, because they have a reputation as such in Europe.

Guess I hate white people then?

 

[faible]

That's great, except most of those people are against everything the left stands for, especially if they are in the majority, which is kind of my whole point to begin with.

This is a bit of a furphy. So long as it doesn't 'do harm to others' then people should be free to practice whatever they want really. Which is exactly what Malifice said.

Fundamentalist Christians are pretty hardcore right wing, with views largely incompatible with democracy and most things 'the left' represents, but so long as those views don't do harm to others (and they often do) then they should be free to hold them. Where it causes issues is when those people manage to stack the Supreme Court and State Political bodies and apply their religious views to do harmful things like remove bodily freedom and autonomy from women under the guise of 'protecting life' - the lives they give precisely zero ****s about once they're born mind you, and the women's lives that will be harmed / lost are obviously also not of interest to them.

Muslims aren't doing anywhere close to the level of harm that Christians are doing in the US right now. Yet people aren't anywhere near as offended about it for <reasons>.

The bit that often gets missed is the 'so long as it doesn't harm others' part when people like Malifice talk about the goals of left wing people in their tolerance.

 

[bzparkes]

This is a bit of a furphy. So long as it doesn't 'do harm to others' then people should be free to practice whatever they want really. Which is exactly what Malifice said.

Fundamentalist Christians are pretty hardcore right wing, with views largely incompatible with democracy and most things 'the left' represents, but so long as those views don't do harm to others (and they often do) then they should be free to hold them. Where it causes issues is when those people manage to stack the Supreme Court and State Political bodies and apply their religious views to do harmful things like remove bodily freedom and autonomy from women under the guise of 'protecting life' - the lives they give precisely zero *s about once they're born mind you, and the women's lives that will be harmed / lost are obviously also not of interest to them.

Muslims aren't doing anywhere close to the level of harm that Christians are doing in the US right now. Yet people aren't anywhere near as offended about it for <reasons>.

The bit that often gets missed is the 'so long as it doesn't harm others' part when people like Malifice talk about the goals of left wing people in their tolerance.

That's all idealistic and a bit fantastical in nature.

Yes, I agree with letting them do what they want, provided it doesn't harm others. You straight up proved my point in regards to fundamentalist Christians though, didn't you?

I think what the supreme court is doing in the USA is abhorrent in cases and not at all secular in nature.

That's not the premise of this thread however.

So my point is exactly that: Let fundamentalist religious groups come into power and be prepared to lose those rights you campaigned so hard for. Just don't be surprised if/when it happens.

From your post, it appears we're in agreement.

 

[faible]

That's all idealistic and a bit fantastical in nature.

Yes, I agree with letting them do what they want, provided it doesn't harm others. You straight up proved my point in regards to fundamentalist Christians though, didn't you?

I think what the supreme court is doing in the USA is abhorrent in cases and not at all secular in nature.

That's not the premise of this thread however.

So my point is exactly that: Let fundamentalist religious groups come into power and be prepared to lose those rights you campaigned so hard for. Just don't be surprised if/when it happens.

From your post, it appears we're in agreement.

You seem to be focusing a lot on Muslims instead of the Christians who are way more problematic in the US right now, and along with the LNP are attempting to do the same here - though the failure of Morrison to achieve their goal of legislated freedom to discriminate was certainly a set back.

When you're fixating on a handful of individual incidents of violent Islamic terrorism instead of the daily application of power by Christians then it's a win for the people you're saying you don't like.

You might have a general premise I agree with - religion and government have no place together - but your target is very different.

 

[bzparkes]

You seem to be focusing a lot on Muslims instead of the Christians

What's the title of this thread?

 

[Malifice]

That's great, except most of those people are against everything the left stands for, especially if they are in the majority, which is kind of my whole point to begin with.

You think Waleed Aly or Ilhan Omar is against everything the left stands for?

One of them is literally a member of the left faction of the Democrat party of the USA.

You keep trying to attribute broad generalizations to over 1 billion people, as if they're some sort of monolithic bloc, despite clear evidence in front of your face, that this is simply not the case.

Also, those religions you are seeking to protect are mostly full of people with right-wing beliefs.

That describes most religions, but even those religions are also full of people with left wing beliefs.

For every 'ban the gays' Christian you get, you also also get those that are all about egalitarianism, charity, peace, human rights and human dignity.

You do get that right? Not all members of a group of over a billion people are all the same.

What do you think of the hate lumped on LGBTQ+ from both Muslims and Christians?

I think they're entitled to their own convictions as much as anyone else. As long as they don't harm or discriminate anyone else (or advocate anyone else do the same), I don't really care.

We're all entitled to our religious beliefs mate. That's just how it is.

How do you think LGBTQ+ feel watching the news of people being thrown off buildings in the middle-east, being gaoled, etc for being a homosexual?

Rightly appalled.

Again, what part of 'believe what you want as long as you dont harm anyone' are you missing?

And you're trying to attribute support for ISIS executions to Muslims generally. ISIS are Salafi Jihadis that follow an extreme minority interpretation of Islam (Wahabbism). I have no issue calling those campaigners out at all.

Just dont try and frame your arguments as if Australia's Muslim population support ISIS or their murders. They ****ing dont. They repudiate the **** out of them (and for the record, the biggest victims of ISIS, are Muslims).

ISIS killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims as 'apostates' (including every Shia Muslim they could get their hands on). They forced millions more to flee as refugees.

Blaming their primary victims (Muslims) for the actions of the group that's killing them (ISIS) is a little rich dont you think?

What happened in Christchurch was tragic, no doubt. This pales in comparison to how many Muslims commit acts of terror upon their on kind on a weekly basis

You're doing it again. You're lumping 'Muslims' into a monolithic bloc. You're completely ignoring the fact that the Islamic faith is divided among many different denominations (Sunni and Shia being the main ones) and those denominations having many different sub sects as well. And within those denominations, you also have ethnic and national divisions.

What you're doing is basically denouncing WW2 as 'the war Christians fought among themselves because they're violent due to Christianity'.

Clearly but you have to be filtering migrants properly to be able to assess this, hence the issues Europe is currently facing.

No you're conflating migrants with refugees.

One of those two have a choice in the matter. The other one doesnt.

I've not once said Australia has an issue with this, even though there is a very small minority of Muslims who are known to support Jihad. It's not more than any other extremist group though, so they're no more 'danger' to us than say those Neo-Nazi flogs who marched through Ballarat on the weekend.

There are indeed Muslims that support Jihad, and are prone to radicalization, and that's a fair topic for the thread.

Labeling your arguments as 'And that's why we need to stop the Arab Muslims from polluting our culture' as you're doing here, is not fair topic for the thread.

No but they should be made to undergo regular education on Australian values/way of life and what's expected of them here, if they're not already.

They already do. And you dont need to be told what's expected of you when you move elsewhere. When you move to London are you in any doubt that you're subject to UK law, and that the main language you need to speak is English?

They're not idiots mate. They understand they're subject to Australian laws.

It's the ones that jump on a boat with 1k others who are, again, undocumented, that I have an issue with, because you have NFI who they are and what their allegiances are. They are the ones who need to be properly assessed to see if they are a security risk before being allowed to settle as a refugee.

Im not arguing with you here, but again this is not a Muslim thing, it's an immigration thing.

It has nothing to do with Islam. Literally any foreign national entering Australia should be vetted as a security risk regardless of faith or nationality or ethnicity.

Being wary of accepting mass immigrants from people who follow a religious faith

Last warning. This is not a thread about immigration or 'stopping the brown people from entering'.

It's a thread about Islam. The religion.

We clear on this?

 

[faible]

What's the title of this thread?

You've spent a lot of words focused on a minority group with no significant power in any western country, whilst having written very few about the ones with actual power in major western countries.

Meanwhile, the current religion killing the most people in the last month is Judaism I believe.

 

[bzparkes]

You've spent a lot of words focused on a minority group with no significant power in any western country, whilst having written very few about the ones with actual power in major western countries.

Meanwhile, the current religion killing the most people in the last month is Judaism I believe.

Again, what is the title of this thread and the topic of discussion?

That should give you a BIG hint as to why I'm discussing Islam and not the others.

 

[bzparkes]

.
Last warning. This is not a thread about immigration or 'stopping the brown people from entering'.

It's a thread about Islam. The religion.

We clear on this?

Well, as long as you're consistent with other posters who keep bringing up other topics other than Islam, because I literally have a bloke directly under your post asking why I'm not talking about groups other than Islam.

Tell me what you want.

 

[Malifice]

Again, what is the title of this thread and the topic of discussion?

Islam the religion. Not 'stopping the Muslims from immigration because they're dangerous'.

It's like if we had a thread on Judaism. I wouldn't want to see 'That's why we need to ban the Jews from entry/ watch the Jews closely, because they're all trying to subvert our culture/ don't assimilate/ are breeding too fast/ are dangerous' etc.

See where the line is there, and please stick to it.

 

[faible]

Again, what is the title of this thread and the topic of discussion?

That should give you a BIG hint as to why I'm discussing Islam and not the others.

I eagerly await your passionate posting about Christians in the appropriate thread given how much time and energy you've spent on Muslims who are a much, much less influential and problematic group in countries like Australia and the US right now.

 

[bzparkes]

Islam the religion. Not 'stopping the Muslims from immigration because they're dangerous'.

It's like if we had a thread on Judaism. I wouldn't want to see 'That's why we need to ban the Jews from entry/ watch the Jews closely, because they're all trying to subvert our culture/ don't assimilate/ are breeding too fast/ are dangerous' etc.

See where the line is there, and please stick to it.

Ok fair enough but for the record, I've never once said Muslim immigration needs to be stopped.