ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old Yesterday, 02:38 AM   #521
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,767
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
1. No. It does say that a large part of it is Islamist terrorist organizations, but I see nothing except your reading between the lines (and then ignoring the actual lines) to say that Islam as a whole is somehow a terrorist threat.
I saw nothing in what IanS said to suggest he believes that Islam as a whole is a terrorist threat. He said that Islamist terrorism is rooted in Islamic belief. This, I think, is so obviously true that I find it hard that this is still being discussed on these pages.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I mean by the same token, for example, Buddhists have killed over 10,000 Muslims in the Rohingya genocide in just a few months between the end of 2016 and 2017, but hardly anyone would say that Buddhism as a whole is some kind of religion of terrorism and violence.
Not the same at all. PLease quote any of the sutras calling for Buddhists to kill, crucify or cut off the fingers and toes of non-Buddhists. Nothing that has happened in Myanmar is a result of anything in Buddhism. What we can say, though, is that Buddhism has failed either to prevent or stop these atrocities.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
E.g., Buddhists again were at it in Sri Lanka. Again, I don't see anyone saying that Buddhism as a whole is to blame.
In the same way that no-one has said that Islam as a whole is to blame. Except, as I said above, in its inability to do something useful.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
2. What the MI5 however don't say is that they need any more help in dealing with it. Partially because...
I have no idea where you got this idea from. It certainly wasn't from the British government.
Quote:
The threat to the UK today remains at severe – meaning an attack is highly likely.

Our security and intelligence agencies are, right now, handling over 500 live operations, they have 3,000 ‘subjects of interest’.

And there are a further 20,000 people who have previously been investigated, so they may still pose a threat.

The biggest threat is from Islamist terrorism – including Al Qa’ida, but particularly from Daesh......

Over the past 5 years, our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have foiled as many as 25 Islamist-linked plots.

That would mean without their vigilance and hard work, we could have seen one attack every 2 months.....

n the 2015 Spending Review, this government committed to spending more than £2 billion on counter-terrorism each year.

We’re giving counter-terrorism policing a £50 million increase in funding this year – to over three quarters of a billion pounds.

And we’re recruiting over 1,900 additional staff across the security and intelligence agencies to improve our response still further.
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
3. Being even the main part of a nearly inexistent threat -- see the numbers I've provided -- is still nothing to get up in arms about. It's like saying that vampires are the most dangerous undead threat. Yeah, but if you're not going to die by either vampire, ghoul or zombie, anyway... who cares?
I trust you are going to share this insight with the British government. I'm sure they would welcome your assessment that their anti-terrorism strategy is as pointless as creating an anti-zombie strategy. This would presumably be followed by a major security review, as it appears you have access to the kind of classified information on counter-terrorism operations that would allow you to make such a pronouncement.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
4. I'm glad you brought up MI5. So let's get back to your claim about Islamic terrorism that it "has required absolutely enormous resources from the West just to keep it within any sort of control at all." (Cf message #478.) Because the WHOLE budget of MI5, according to the official figures, is around 0.1% of the GDP of UK. That is the WHOLE of MI5, not just terrorism, and certainly not just Islamist terrorism. Hardly seems that enormous, eh?
Answered above.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
5. But generally, if your source, in this case MI5's web page, doesn't actually SAY something, then you don't know. It doesn't mean you get to fill in the blanks with whatever fairy tale appeals to you.
Can you share your sources? I would love to get the kind of inside information on MI5's operations that you claim to have. Must be cool. I mean, you must have this, right? You wouldn't want to be filling in the blanks with whatever fairy tale appeals to you, now, would you?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:32 AM   #522
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,218
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I saw nothing in what IanS said to suggest he believes that Islam as a whole is a terrorist threat. He said that Islamist terrorism is rooted in Islamic belief. This, I think, is so obviously true that I find it hard that this is still being discussed on these pages.
Only by double standard, and bare assertions. The later being recognizable when someone resorts to claiming something is obviously true instead of supporting it, or as you do below, try to reverse the burden of proof.

You can find about as much bad stuff, or in fact worse in the Bible. In fact, the Bible includes a commandment to exterminate EVERYONE in a whole city if they permit a single infidel to overtly worship another god and try to convert people to that god, then burn down the city, and prevent it from being rebuilt. (E.g., Deuteronomy 13:12-17) Say what you will about the Quran, I don't recall a single verse that's THAT extreme in there.

But there comes the double standard: when it comes to the bible, oh, that doesn't count, we just don't do that any more. But when it comes to Islam, oh, if one verse in THEIR book says something bad, then surely THAT one totally counts, and verily you couldn't even be a Muslim without totally taking every single verse seriously.

So, no, it doesn't suffice to just handwave and wonder why people are even arguing what you can't support. You actually have to support why such different standards are warranted.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Not the same at all. PLease quote any of the sutras calling for Buddhists to kill, crucify or cut off the fingers and toes of non-Buddhists. Nothing that has happened in Myanmar is a result of anything in Buddhism. What we can say, though, is that Buddhism has failed either to prevent or stop these atrocities.
Yet that didn't stop the larger population group identifying as Buddhists from going out and trying to exterminate the Muslim group. Just because the former were Muslim and not Buddhists like the rest of them.

I can go with 'being Buddhist didn't stop people from doing atrocities', but that actually does illustrate a point: what a religion says and what people do in its name are rather different things. And that goes for the Quran too.


Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I have no idea where you got this idea from. It certainly wasn't from the British government.
I still don't see anything saying that they need any extra policies, nor help from unqualified Internet scaremongers, to be able to deal with the Islam.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I trust you are going to share this insight with the British government. I'm sure they would welcome your assessment that their anti-terrorism strategy is as pointless as creating an anti-zombie strategy. This would presumably be followed by a major security review, as it appears you have access to the kind of classified information on counter-terrorism operations that would allow you to make such a pronouncement.
Except I never said they shouldn't have a counter-terror group. I'm saying that the scaremongering, like what IanS is doing here, is pointless and dumb. Because, yes, your risk of dying in a terror attack in any given year is almost just as lost in the decimals as dying to zombies.

And you don't even need to know classified MI5 data to make that call. You can just look at the actual attacks that did happen, and are a matter of public record, and divide by the population to get a per capita risk. It's thoroughly underwhelming.

Anyone running around scared because of THAT threat level, is just an idiot.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Answered above.
So you did, but in a way that actually doesn't help Ian'S case.

Because the GDP of the UK is 2.11 trillion pounds (Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/...uk-since-2000/ ) so an expense of around 2 billion a year is just under the 0.1% of the GDP I was claiming.

So if by "answered" you mean confirmed my point, then yeah, you've done that. Of course, you would have needed to actually do elementary arithmetic to see that that's what you're doing.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Can you share your sources? I would love to get the kind of inside information on MI5's operations that you claim to have. Must be cool. I mean, you must have this, right? You wouldn't want to be filling in the blanks with whatever fairy tale appeals to you, now, would you?
Actually I notice I'm the only one in the thread who has provided numbers for my claims. Just because you pretend to not see them, doesn't make it equal to the dumb fairy-tale fantasies of the Islamophobe camp.

Also, all I see there is that you not only try to reverse the burden of proof, but try to preemptively set an arbitrary unmeetable criterion for what would meet it. Oh la la, I need classified MI5 information to disagree with your dumb bare postulates? Really? Numbers that are on public record just won't do for your highness?

Heh.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; Yesterday at 03:52 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:48 AM   #523
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,218
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Good. But of course you are not being forcibly indoctrinated to believe any dangerous superstitions. But would you really deny that millions of young children are being forcibly indoctrinated with Islamic religious beliefs in Madrassas all over Pakistan and elsewhere (see footnote too)?



Footnote - I mentioned earlier that Muslim groups in the UK have successfully persuaded the UK government and the UK legal system, to allow certain types of legal cases (afaik mainly family law matters such as divorce issues) to be decided not by UK law and by UK courts, but instead by what they set up themselves as Sharia law and their own Sharia courts. But did you also know that in the UK we now apparently have over 2000 Madrassa's? Because I found that "fact" very surprising (I was not aware the UK had any Madrassa's!, or that we had any law allowing that sort of after-school cramming education specifically from holy Islamic texts) ... though in fairness I should add that most of the so-called Madrasas appear to be very small and just held in peoples houses or in a local community hall or perhaps in an area of the local Mosque ... but even so, if there are 2000 Madrasas's in the UK then it means there thousands of Muslim parents and many more than two thousand of their children who are being forcibly indoctrinated with even more Islam than they get by insisting that the children also attend the local Mosques several times a week, not to mention some of them also sending their children to local state schools, ie normal day-time schools 9 am to 4pm, such as those I mentioned earlier in Birmingham, where the Muslim teachers and the Muslim parent governors were very clearly trying to teach the children Islamic religious beliefs during ordinary school lessons.

By the way, I would not particularly mind them doing any of that, if it did not lead to false educational beliefs (eg. Beliefs against science and evolution and beliefs in supernatural gods and miracles etc.), and more importantly to extremely dangerous beliefs & attitudes towards anyone else outside of the faith of Islam … but unfortunately it obviously is encouraging all of that.
Actually, you're just doing the usual pulling numbers out of your own butt. The official numbers say: 184 Muslim Schools (one academy, 16 free schools, 12 voluntary aided, and 155 independent schools) TOTAL. Source: https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/f...ols-in-the-uk/

So I'm not sure how you could be surprised of something you pulled out of your own ass

But more importantly, I trust that you obviously will apply the same standards to Christian-run schools? The Catholic schools alone outnumber the Muslims by more than an order of magnitude, and if we talk the state funded ones, it's more like over 100 to 1. That number gets even higher for the Church Of England ones.

And sure, places where people learn just religion are scary. Let's get rid of all the seminars and such. I trust you'll apply the same standards to both, right?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; Yesterday at 03:54 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:05 AM   #524
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,767
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Actually, you're just doing the usual pulling numbers out of your own butt. The official numbers say: 184 Muslim Schools (one academy, 16 free schools, 12 voluntary aided, and 155 independent schools) TOTAL. Source: https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/f...ols-in-the-uk/

So I'm not sure how you could be surprised of something you pulled out of your own ass
Nope. Sorry, but you're wrong again. I think this is because you are confusing Muslim schools with out-of-school establishments, which is what madrassas are.
There actually are about 2,000 of these in the UK.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:09 AM   #525
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,956
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Good. But of course you are not being forcibly indoctrinated to believe any dangerous superstitions. But would you really deny that millions of young children are being forcibly indoctrinated with Islamic religious beliefs in Madrassas all over Pakistan and elsewhere (see footnote too)?



Footnote - I mentioned earlier that Muslim groups in the UK have successfully persuaded the UK government and the UK legal system, to allow certain types of legal cases (afaik mainly family law matters such as divorce issues) to be decided not by UK law and by UK courts, but instead by what they set up themselves as Sharia law and their own Sharia courts. But did you also know that in the UK we now apparently have over 2000 Madrassa's? Because I found that "fact" very surprising (I was not aware the UK had any Madrassa's!, or that we had any law allowing that sort of after-school cramming education specifically from holy Islamic texts) ... though in fairness I should add that most of the so-called Madrasas appear to be very small and just held in peoples houses or in a local community hall or perhaps in an area of the local Mosque ... but even so, if there are 2000 Madrasas's in the UK then it means there thousands of Muslim parents and many more than two thousand of their children who are being forcibly indoctrinated with even more Islam than they get by insisting that the children also attend the local Mosques several times a week, not to mention some of them also sending their children to local state schools, ie normal day-time schools 9 am to 4pm, such as those I mentioned earlier in Birmingham, where the Muslim teachers and the Muslim parent governors were very clearly trying to teach the children Islamic religious beliefs during ordinary school lessons.

By the way, I would not particularly mind them doing any of that, if it did not lead to false educational beliefs (eg. Beliefs against science and evolution and beliefs in supernatural gods and miracles etc.), and more importantly to extremely dangerous beliefs & attitudes towards anyone else outside of the faith of Islam … but unfortunately it obviously is encouraging all of that.
Ian's think you've fallen for a bit of media hype over "sharia" courts. It's an old English common law principle that we can in certain areas agree to arbitration. The so called sharia courts are no more than that. They are the same as in a business contract the two parties agreeing to have any contractual disputes decided by a QC rather than having to go to the expense of a court trial. And yes I can if I want they for example have a decision made on the bases of sharia law. But those decisions have to be legal with the UK framework and follow legal rules of evidence and so on. For example a "sharia court" may determine whether to allow a man or a woman to divorce their spouse if both agree to that, but that only refers to the religious marriage not the actual legal marriage that exists within English law and there is nothing a sharia court can do about that.

In summary the so called "sharia courts" are an ancient English right that we can all invoke.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; Yesterday at 04:11 AM. Reason: Pppppppppp
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:42 AM   #526
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,767
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Only by double standard, and bare assertions. The later being recognizable when someone resorts to claiming something is obviously true instead of supporting it, or as you do below, try to reverse the burden of proof.
Do you need a source to accept that Islamist terrorism is based in Islamic belief?
(There's a clue in the name. ).

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
You can find about as much bad stuff, or in fact worse in the Bible. In fact, the Bible includes a commandment to exterminate EVERYONE in a whole city if they permit a single infidel to overtly worship another god and try to convert people to that god, then burn down the city, and prevent it from being rebuilt. (E.g., Deuteronomy 13:12-17) Say what you will about the Quran, I don't recall a single verse that's THAT extreme in there.

But there comes the double standard: when it comes to the bible, oh, that doesn't count, we just don't do that any more. But when it comes to Islam, oh, if one verse in THEIR book says something bad, then surely THAT one totally counts, and verily you couldn't even be a Muslim without totally taking every single verse seriously.
It is not a double standard to say that Christianity and Islam are different, because they are different.
I have been at pains to point out specifically which sects of Islam do take every verse of the Quran seriously and literally, and the disproportionate control these sects have over mosques in the UK. I have linked to a number of sources supporting this: perhaps you missed all of this.
Again, I haven't seen anyone denying that fundamentalist sects of Christianity exist, nor handwaving away their potential to be dangerous. I certainly haven't.
It is, however, a central tenet of Islam that the Quran is to be taken as read, and that it is entirely correct.
In Chrisitanity, I am not sure whether there has ever been an official pronouncement by any church leader, but it is a fact that the vast majority of Christians do not interpret the Bible literally, nor do they apply its teachings literally either. That there are horrible verses in the Bible does not change this:I'm not defending the Bible. I'm simply stating what is actually happening in the world.
This cannot be said of the Wahhabbis, the Salafists and the others I have listed, who are very clear that Muslims are expected to take every verse seriously, and reserve themselves the right to kill those who do not agree with this.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
So, no, it doesn't suffice to just handwave and wonder why people are even arguing what you can't support. You actually have to support why such different standards are warranted.
Again, because Christianity is practised in a different way from Islam. It does not pervade every aspect of life in the way that Islam does.
If there were Christian sects calling for cities to be burned down, and using the Bible as justification, then I would condemn them in exactly the same way that I condemn the fundamentalist Islamists. Are there any sects doing this? I am not aware of any.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Yet that didn't stop the larger population group identifying as Buddhists from going out and trying to exterminate the Muslim group. Just because the former were Muslim and not Buddhists like the rest of them.
So religion is a factor in this violence, then? Are you holding all of Buddhism to account for this, or just a violent group within that religion?


Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I can go with 'being Buddhist didn't stop people from doing atrocities', but that actually does illustrate a point: what a religion says and what people do in its name are rather different things. And that goes for the Quran too.
In many cases, yes. The majority of Muslims do not literally act out everything they are told to do by the Quran. However, significant numbers in certain denominations of Islam do. This again is one of the crucial differences between Islam and other religions.


Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I still don't see anything saying that they need any extra policies, nor help from unqualified Internet scaremongers, to be able to deal with the Islam.
Strawman. You said the threat from Islaimist terrorism was non-existent, and that no extra resources were needed to combat this threat. No-one said anything about 'dealing with the Islam'.
If you had read the article, you would have seen that the UK government is indeed creating extra policies, as well as devoting extra resources. If you are going to demand that people support their claims, you could at least read that supporting evidence when it is provided.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Except I never said they shouldn't have a counter-terror group. I'm saying that the scaremongering, like what IanS is doing here, is pointless and dumb. Because, yes, your risk of dying in a terror attack in any given year is almost just as lost in the decimals as dying to zombies.
IanS has carefully and painstakingly referenced specific terror attacks, over and over and over again. This is not scaremongering: this is recounting facts.
How many people have died over the last few years from zombie attacks? Is this number comparable to the number of people killed in Islamist terror attacks?
Saying that these deaths are statistically unimportant is a slap in the face of every victim's family. Shame on you.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
And you don't even need to know classified MI5 data to make that call. You can just look at the actual attacks that did happen, and are a matter of public record, and divide by the population to get a per capita risk. It's thoroughly underwhelming.
Again, your complete lack of sympathy for the dead and injured is noteable and horrifying.
You seem fixated on statistics, as if that reduces the human cost of terrorism. I reject this idea completely.
You have also, once again, ignored the article, which talks about the number of foiled attacks. If no action was taken, then the number of attacks would have gone up. It seems like a tautology, but you appear to have missed this, so I think it's worth stating more clearly.


Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Anyone running around scared because of THAT threat level, is just an idiot.
Again, I encourage you to contact the UK government and tell them that their assessment of Islamist terrorism being a very real threat is one made by idiots. Let me know what they say.


Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
So you did, but in a way that actually doesn't help Ian'S case.

Because the GDP of the UK is 2.11 trillion pounds (Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/...uk-since-2000/ ) so an expense of around 2 billion a year is just under the 0.1% of the GDP I was claiming.

So if by "answered" you mean confirmed my point, then yeah, you've done that. Of course, you would have needed to actually do elementary arithmetic to see that that's what you're doing.
Nice to know you consider £2 billion a trifling amount. If I PM you my bank details, perhaps you could send the same amount to me.
This is two billion that is not being spent on schools, hospitals or housing. I consider that to be significant.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post

Actually I notice I'm the only one in the thread who has provided numbers for my claims. Just because you pretend to not see them, doesn't make it equal to the dumb fairy-tale fantasies of the Islamophobe camp.
Again, I suggest you read the link, and my earlier posts, before you make any more dishonest posts like this one.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Also, all I see there is that you not only try to reverse the burden of proof, but try to preemptively set an arbitrary unmeetable criterion for what would meet it. Oh la la, I need classified MI5 information to disagree with your dumb bare postulates? Really? Numbers that are on public record just won't do for your highness?

Heh.
Once again, until I'm blue in the face: READ THE LINK.
It gives exact numbers of the foiled attacks.
Your claim is that this threat is non-existent. For you to be able to claim this, you must be able to show how these planned attacks never existed. Please do so, because, as we both agree, unsupported assertion is inadequate. You can start by posting the 'number on public record' of planned terror attacks that did not exist. Should be an interesting read.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:01 AM   #527
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,571
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Actually, you're just doing the usual pulling numbers out of your own butt. The official numbers say: 184 Muslim Schools (one academy, 16 free schools, 12 voluntary aided, and 155 independent schools) TOTAL. Source: https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/f...ols-in-the-uk/

So I'm not sure how you could be surprised of something you pulled out of your own ass

But more importantly, I trust that you obviously will apply the same standards to Christian-run schools? The Catholic schools alone outnumber the Muslims by more than an order of magnitude, and if we talk the state funded ones, it's more like over 100 to 1. That number gets even higher for the Church Of England ones.

And sure, places where people learn just religion are scary. Let's get rid of all the seminars and such. I trust you'll apply the same standards to both, right?

Actually it's you that just "pulled numbers out of your own ass". And by the way remarks like that are both deliberately offensive and clearly confrontational ... and we can all do without that sort of childish trash-talk thank you very much.

I said nothing about the number of official Islamic faith schools. Why did you think I mentioned any number for those?

The number which you are so aggressively complaining about (2000) was what I very clearly & specifically gave as the number of "Madrassa's", i.e. private after-school religious cramming classes that are (AFAIK) just teaching the Koran and Hadiths. That's something totally 100% different from any religious faith-schools that have to follow the national curriculum.

See this and argue with the BBC instead -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35252469

And here's a quote from that BBC link to save you even the trouble of having to read it -

" There are believed to be about 2,000 madrassas in the UK. They teach Muslim children subjects such as Arabic to recite the Koran and lessons in the principles and practices of their faith ".

Actually, you (and others here) certainly should read that fairly short BBC news article (i.e. in the link), because it sets out why all sorts of people in the UK do have very real concerns about what so many Muslim parents are doing by sending their children to Madrassa's like that ... ie very real concerns about what the children are being forcibly taught about beliefs that may quite easily lead them into exactly the same extremist religious views that this thread is all about.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:49 AM   #528
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,218
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Do you need a source to accept that Islamist terrorism is based in Islamic belief?
(There's a clue in the name. ).
I do need a source to accept that different rules apply to different religions, which is essentially what is claimed.

Plus, if your argument is based on what the name of something is, do you also believe that the German Democratic Republic was actually democratic? Yeah, you do need more than a name to have a point.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
It is not a double standard to say that Christianity and Islam are different, because they are different.
Just saying that they're different is too blanket to be of any use. There are twins that are technically different. E.g., one got a tattoo.

You need to show what's so different that you can take verses which are at best equally evil from both, and at worst it's actually the Bible having the worst ones, and count them only for one of them. Not that I've seen anyone actually knowing the verses for the Quran, mind you.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
It is, however, a central tenet of Islam that the Quran is to be taken as read, and that it is entirely correct.
Technically that also describes most protestants. So it's still special pleading if only for one of the two groups, both of which claim that their holy book is to be taken literally, I'm supposed to believe that they totally could never compartmentalize like everyone else.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
In Chrisitanity, I am not sure whether there has ever been an official pronouncement by any church leader, but it is a fact that the vast majority of Christians do not interpret the Bible literally, nor do they apply its teachings literally either.
I wouldn't say that vast. Protestants alone account for 40% of the Xians, and about 10% of the human population. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_by_country

And frankly if your argument hinges on not taking the scripture literally, then really you should be afraid of almost everyone except Catholics. Well, except oops, even for those the NT is taken quasi-literally, and they still can pick and choose what God REALLY meant that way from the OT too.

And if it hinges on any sect actually saying you're not to take the scripture seriously, just chill and be cool, then good luck with that

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
This cannot be said of the Wahhabbis, the Salafists and the others I have listed, who are very clear that Muslims are expected to take every verse seriously, and reserve themselves the right to kill those who do not agree with this.
And yet THE main pusher of Wahhabi Islam is Saudi Arabia, which is an ally of the US, including in the "war on terror". Most of the western operations in the middle east including against ISIS rely heavily on the Saudi ports and airports, and generally use it as a massive staging area in the logistics there.

Seems to me like the Muslims can compartmentalize just as well as everyone else, when they don't already have a beef with someone.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
So religion is a factor in this violence, then? Are you holding all of Buddhism to account for this, or just a violent group within that religion?
I don't think Buddhism is more than a rationalization there, same as the Islam is in the Middle East.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
In many cases, yes. The majority of Muslims do not literally act out everything they are told to do by the Quran. However, significant numbers in certain denominations of Islam do. This again is one of the crucial differences between Islam and other religions.
That would be an argument, if supported. Exactly how significant are we talking about, in the ways that I should be threatened about? Because it seems to me like if even 1% did, you'd see a lot more effect than the insignificant threat we actually see.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Strawman. You said the threat from Islaimist terrorism was non-existent, and that no extra resources were needed to combat this threat. No-one said anything about 'dealing with the Islam'.
Project much? Because that's your own strawman interpretation. What I said from the start is exactly they didn't say they need more help, not that they don't need resources.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
If you had read the article, you would have seen that the UK government is indeed creating extra policies, as well as devoting extra resources. If you are going to demand that people support their claims, you could at least read that supporting evidence when it is provided.
Support doesn't mean "against whatever strawman you feel like fighting."

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
IanS has carefully and painstakingly referenced specific terror attacks, over and over and over again. This is not scaremongering: this is recounting facts.
BS. He has painstakingly and repeatedly claimed some false numbers that were out of whack by orders of magnitude, to exaggerate the threat. That's literally scaremongering.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
How many people have died over the last few years from zombie attacks? Is this number comparable to the number of people killed in Islamist terror attacks?
Saying that these deaths are statistically unimportant is a slap in the face of every victim's family. Shame on you.



Again, your complete lack of sympathy for the dead and injured is noteable and horrifying.
You seem fixated on statistics, as if that reduces the human cost of terrorism. I reject this idea completely.
You have also, once again, ignored the article, which talks about the number of foiled attacks. If no action was taken, then the number of attacks would have gone up. It seems like a tautology, but you appear to have missed this, so I think it's worth stating more clearly.
So, a literal appeal to emotion? Ignore the actual statistics, ignore reality in fact, just act on emotion? You know it's a fallacy, right? Ran out of actual arguments already?

Oh wait, you never actually had any.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Again, I encourage you to contact the UK government and tell them that their assessment of Islamist terrorism being a very real threat is one made by idiots. Let me know what they say.
I would, if the scaremongering hyperbole were coming from them. It does not. Not only no, the position of a couple of dishonest scaremongers in the thread is not the same as the MI5 one, nor supported by it, but I dare say you probably already know that. Because if you had the facts on your side, you wouldn't have to do the idiotic appeal to emotion above. When someone tells me that shame on me for going by the actual numbers that describe reality, instead of the emotional BS that's all they can offer, yeah, they already know that they don't have the facts to support their BS.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Nice to know you consider £2 billion a trifling amount. If I PM you my bank details, perhaps you could send the same amount to me.
This is two billion that is not being spent on schools, hospitals or housing. I consider that to be significant.
At the scale of the GDP of the UK, yes, it's trifling. And at the scale of the UK population, it costs everyone about 30 quid to stay incredibly safe from terror attacks.

But basically all I see is just more bla, bla, bla, handwaving, emotional BS, and so on from your side. Do you actually HAVE an argument there? Feel free to start using actual logic any time soon.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Again, I suggest you read the link, and my earlier posts, before you make any more dishonest posts like this one.

Once again, until I'm blue in the face: READ THE LINK.
It gives exact numbers of the foiled attacks.
I've read it the first time, wasn't impressed.

Yes, I have read the first time that they claim to have foiled 25 attacks in 5 years. That boils down to 5 per year. Even extrapolating from how effective the successful ones were, that still adds up to an insignificant threat as far as the dumb scaremongering here goes.

Yes, it's good that they do their job, but if anything it shows that they are perfectly capable of doing their job.

Yeah, I get it. For your kind of scaremongering dummy it must seem like surely if anyone just read the same thing, they'd go "OMG, could have had 5 more lame attacks in a year! OMG! Islam must DIE DIE DIE!" Sorry to break it to you, but it's not that you're the only one who read it, you're just the only one having that dumb reaction.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Your claim is that this threat is non-existent. For you to be able to claim this, you must be able to show how these planned attacks never existed. Please do so, because, as we both agree, unsupported assertion is inadequate. You can start by posting the 'number on public record' of planned terror attacks that did not exist. Should be an interesting read.
Strawman again, silly? I have actually given exact numbers for attacks, casualties, and what the actual risk is for a member of the EU. I'm not sure what kind of confusion of mind is needed to read that and then somehow come out thinking I said it's flat out non-existent.

Comprehension problems? Nah, it's just easier for you to LIE about what I said than to support your own dumb Islamophobia, amirite? Who needs data and logic when you can just make up what Hans said and what he should be ashamed of saying, amirite?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; Yesterday at 07:01 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:23 AM   #529
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,218
@IanS
So basically what scares you is that they too have sunday schools?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:53 AM   #530
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,767
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
@IanS
So basically what scares you is that they too have sunday schools?
It's OK to admit you were wrong, you know. No-one will think any less of you.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:58 AM   #531
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,218
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
It's OK to admit you were wrong, you know. No-one will think any less of you.
Pfft, sure, I was wrong about the number of madrassas. There. You can stop projecting now

The same question remains though: so, what is supposed to be super scary is that the Muslims too have sunday schools?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:32 AM   #532
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,767
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I do need a source to accept that different rules apply to different religions, which is essentially what is claimed.
Please cite your source for the claim that different rules apply to different religions.
Then please cite your source for these rules. If you're going to call them 'rules', then there must be some official, legal source for these rules, right?
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Plus, if your argument is based on what the name of something is, do you also believe that the German Democratic Republic was actually democratic? Yeah, you do need more than a name to have a point.
I have already linked to the specific Islamic sects that use Islam as their inspiration and legitimisation for violence. Get back to me when you've read this.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post

Just saying that they're different is too blanket to be of any use. There are twins that are technically different. E.g., one got a tattoo.

You need to show what's so different that you can take verses which are at best equally evil from both, and at worst it's actually the Bible having the worst ones, and count them only for one of them. Not that I've seen anyone actually knowing the verses for the Quran, mind you.
You appear to have missed me quoting actual Quranic verses. Read my posts more carefully next time.
I have already shown how these two religions are different. Read my posts more carefully next time.


Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Technically that also describes most protestants. So it's still special pleading if only for one of the two groups, both of which claim that their holy book is to be taken literally, I'm supposed to believe that they totally could never compartmentalize like everyone else.



I wouldn't say that vast. Protestants alone account for 40% of the Xians, and about 10% of the human population. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_by_country
Please cite your sources for Protestants stoning their daughters to death for pre-marital sex, not shaving, avoiding seafood and refusing to wear clothes made of mixed fibres. You're all about the evidence, right?

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
And frankly if your argument hinges on not taking the scripture literally, then really you should be afraid of almost everyone except Catholics. Well, except oops, even for those the NT is taken quasi-literally, and they still can pick and choose what God REALLY meant that way from the OT too.
No, Catholics can't. Have you heard of someone called "The Pope"?


Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
And if it hinges on any sect actually saying you're not to take the scripture seriously, just chill and be cool, then good luck with that
Please read up on the Church of England before you make any more stupid statements like that.


Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
And yet THE main pusher of Wahhabi Islam is Saudi Arabia, which is an ally of the US, including in the "war on terror". Most of the western operations in the middle east including against ISIS rely heavily on the Saudi ports and airports, and generally use it as a massive staging area in the logistics there.
A point which I have made repeatedly on this forum. If you are going to argue with me, you might consider looking at my posts first.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Seems to me like the Muslims can compartmentalize just as well as everyone else, when they don't already have a beef with someone.
Now who is painting all Muslims with the same brush? Are you saying that all Muslims are hypocrites?


Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I don't think Buddhism is more than a rationalization there, same as the Islam is in the Middle East.
Then why bring it up? If you think that religion is irrelevant to the conflict in the Balkans, and the attempted genocide against the Rohingyas, why make the point that it was a conflict between religions?


Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
That would be an argument, if supported. Exactly how significant are we talking about, in the ways that I should be threatened about? Because it seems to me like if even 1% did, you'd see a lot more effect than the insignificant threat we actually see.
Once again, your callous disregard for human life is noted. Also your arrogant dismissal of the considered conclusions of the governments of the UK and many other countries. Just because you think a threat is insignificant doesn't mean it actually is. How many lives have to be lost before you will consider it significant?


Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Project much? Because that's your own strawman interpretation. What I said from the start is exactly they didn't say they need more help, not that they don't need resources.
Semantic hairsplitting. Define 'help without resources'.


Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
BS. He has painstakingly and repeatedly claimed some false numbers that were out of whack by orders of magnitude, to exaggerate the threat. That's literally scaremongering.
Citation needed.


Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
So, a literal appeal to emotion? Ignore the actual statistics, ignore reality in fact, just act on emotion? You know it's a fallacy, right? Ran out of actual arguments already?

Oh wait, you never actually had any.
No. My argument has been clear from the start. You are not aware of it because- as you have repeatedly demonstrated- you haven't actually read any of my posts.


Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I would, if the scaremongering hyperbole were coming from them. It does not. Not only no, the position of a couple of dishonest scaremongers in the thread is not the same as the MI5 one, nor supported by it, but I dare say you probably already know that. Because if you had the facts on your side, you wouldn't have to do the idiotic appeal to emotion above. When someone tells me that shame on me for going by the actual numbers that describe reality, instead of the emotional BS that's all they can offer, yeah, they already know that they don't have the facts to support their BS.
You have actually described sympathy for the dead and injured as 'idiotic appeal to emotion', as a counter to my charge that you lack empathy. I'm not sure that's working.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post

At the scale of the GDP of the UK, yes, it's trifling. And at the scale of the UK population, it costs everyone about 30 quid to stay incredibly safe from terror attacks.
Firstly, is there a reason why you have chosen to compare government spending on counterterrorism against GDP, as against, say, government spending, or even defence spending? Could it possibly be because you wanted to make a rather dishonest statistical point?
Secondly, you are again stating that the UK government, supported by the intelligence services, is completely wrong about the threat posed by terrorism.On what are you basing this conclusion? Is it your contention that there will be no more terrorist attacks in the UK?
Thirdly, no-one except you has said that the population of the UK is 'incredibly safe' from terror attacks. On what are you basing that assessment?

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
But basically all I see is just more bla, bla, bla, handwaving, emotional BS, and so on from your side. Do you actually HAVE an argument there? Feel free to start using actual logic any time soon.
No, I'm sorry, but it's you doing the handwaving. Any time you feel up to showing how the threat from Islamist terrorism in the UK is non-existent, then do please step up.


Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I've read it the first time, wasn't impressed.

Yes, I have read the first time that they claim to have foiled 25 attacks in 5 years. That boils down to 5 per year. Even extrapolating from how effective the successful ones were, that still adds up to an insignificant threat as far as the dumb scaremongering here goes.
Again with the 'deaths are insignificant' shtick. Do you care about people at all?
Again, have you contacted the British government with your detailed and evidentially supported conclusion that they are idiots for saying there is a real threat from terrorism? Can you tell us what their reaction was?

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post

Yeah, I get it. For your kind of scaremongering dummy it must seem like surely if anyone just read the same thing, they'd go "OMG, could have had 5 more lame attacks in a year! OMG! Islam must DIE DIE DIE!" Sorry to break it to you, but it's not that you're the only one who read it, you're just the only one having that dumb reaction.
Well, firstly, this is the British government, and you have yet to show they are scaremongering. If you are claiming that they have not foiled any terror attacks, please cite your sources. If you are claiming that there is not a severe threat from terrorism, please cite your sources.
If you think that deaths and injuries are 'lame', then again you are displaying your callous contempt for human life, and, again, shame on you.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post

Strawman again, silly? I have actually given exact numbers for attacks, casualties, and what the actual risk is for a member of the EU. I'm not sure what kind of confusion of mind is needed to read that and then somehow come out thinking I said it's flat out non-existent.
My mistake. You said it was 'nearly inexistent'. So you don't care about the deaths and injuries caused by the actual attacks, because they are 'nearly inexistent'. You also continue to ignore the number of foiled attacks, presumably becaue that would spoil your narrative.
How many deaths would it take for you to acknowledge that terrorism exists? What is your threshold here?

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Comprehension problems? Nah, it's just easier for you to LIE about what I said than to support your own dumb Islamophobia, amirite? Who needs data and logic when you can just make up what Hans said and what he should be ashamed of saying, amirite?
I have been at pains to point out my lack of Islamophobia. Oh, but I forgot that you haven't actually read any of my posts, so I'll forgive you that one.
Do please quote my 'LIES', though. It would be interesting to see how many of my actual posts you have really read, and then how much of them you have understood.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis

Last edited by Cosmic Yak; Yesterday at 09:35 AM.
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:34 AM   #533
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,767
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Pfft, sure, I was wrong about the number of madrassas. There. You can stop projecting now
You accused IanS of pulling these figures out of his fundament. Perhaps next time you could actually check before proceeding with such arrogant rudeness.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
The same question remains though: so, what is supposed to be super scary is that the Muslims too have sunday schools?
Read the linked article. You know, the sources you keep insisting you want to see. It's all there.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:34 AM   #534
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,218
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
You accused IanS of pulling these figures out of his fundament. Perhaps next time you could actually check before proceeding with such arrogant rudeness.
Right. I was wrong about the meaning of a foreign word. I assumed that Ian'S claim "The lives and the prospects of children (that's everyone in their formative years) would be vastly better for having a proper education in real schools rather than a forced religious education in Madrassa's." means they're actually schools.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Read the linked article. You know, the sources you keep insisting you want to see. It's all there.
I have. You ought to stop assuming that surely everyone who doesn't get the same knee-jerk scare reaction, surely didn't read the fluff piece. Or that conversely if they don't get the same mindless scare reaction you do, then surely they haven't read it.

But if you absolutely need an analysis of it, I'm happy to oblige. Maybe then you can get that silly notion of being the yardstick of reactions to Islam out of your head:

- dodgy language: "There are believed" to be about 2,000 madrassas in the UK. Well, some people believe the Earth is flat. Is there some actual count? Evidence that that estimate is based on?

Not that it's what matters most, mind you.

I'll give a passing nod though to Ian'S hyperbole again: "But did you also know that in the UK we now apparently have over 2000 Madrassa's?" I love how "about 2000" becomes "over 2000" when it's time for scaremongering. No, really. I do.

- It's repeatedly called "out-of-school education settings" Also, "They teach Muslim children subjects such as Arabic to recite the Koran and lessons in the principles and practices of their faith." Ah-ha. So they ARE basically Sunday schools. And NOT, as IanS tried to portray them, a substitute for going to an actual school. BS scaremongering based on mis-representation duly noted again.

- Exactly ZERO evidence presented that there is actually any teaching of hate or extremism. The only actual inspections mentioned in the article only say that they "had found "squalid" conditions in places".

The only "support" for the accusation of teaching hate is that some conservatives warn that there might be a RISK that that could happen. Well, whop-de-do, cows go moo, the pope craps in the woods, and conservative types are afraid of foreigners. Wake me up when they have actually found anything wrong, not when just someone supposes it might possibly happen.


Anyway, yeah, I've read it, I'm not impressed.

And the same question remains: so, the scare is that the Muslims have some Sunday schools too?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; Yesterday at 12:30 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:28 PM   #535
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,218
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Please cite your source for the claim that different rules apply to different religions.
Then please cite your source for these rules. If you're going to call them 'rules', then there must be some official, legal source for these rules, right?
If we're at the point where you're playing dumb lexical games like that if someone mentions "applying different rules" then it must be in the sense of official legal rules, you're plumbing depths of dishonest arguing that even theist apologists haven't managed on this board too often. Seriously, that's long ceased to be an argument. You're just playing disruptive word games to dodge having to have one. And I'm calling it out.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
You appear to have missed me quoting actual Quranic verses. Read my posts more carefully next time.
I have already shown how these two religions are different. Read my posts more carefully next time.
Again, by essentially assuming that only one of them can compartmentalize.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Please cite your sources for Protestants stoning their daughters to death for pre-marital sex, not shaving, avoiding seafood and refusing to wear clothes made of mixed fibres. You're all about the evidence, right?
Moving goalposts duly noted. What you originally said was that the vast majority of Xians don't profess to take their book LITERALLY. Now you're moving towards the unrelated goalpost of whether they actually do everything that's in the book.

But there's your illustration of applying different rules for the different sects: for the Xians it doesn't matter whether they say their book is literally true, 'cause most don't do the stuff that the book commands. Whereas for the Muslims if a sect if they make the exact same claim that their book is literally true, then that's it.

Make up your mind what you are actually comparing. Is it whether they claim their book is literally true, OR whether the majority actually do everything that the book says? Which one is it?

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
No, Catholics can't. Have you heard of someone called "The Pope"?
Again, at this point you're just playing dumb word games. The "catholics" as a group most certainly can and do decide which parts of the OT still apply (e.g., ever heard of Onan?), and which parts of the NT are to be taken literally. Yes, that pope guy may even be involved.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Now who is painting all Muslims with the same brush? Are you saying that all Muslims are hypocrites?
If compartmentalizing religion -- which is what I was talking about -- means being a hypocrite, sure, they're doing it just about much as any other religious group.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Then why bring it up? If you think that religion is irrelevant to the conflict in the Balkans, and the attempted genocide against the Rohingyas, why make the point that it was a conflict between religions?
Because I think it's about as relevant for the Muslims too.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Once again, your callous disregard for human life is noted. Also your arrogant dismissal of the considered conclusions of the governments of the UK and many other countries. Just because you think a threat is insignificant doesn't mean it actually is. How many lives have to be lost before you will consider it significant?
Bla bla bla, more appeal to emotion.

Pretty stupid too. Because you not only shrug off a MUCH bigger risk (as in, orders of magnitude higher) to human life whenever you ride any vehicle, but you shrug off the risk to CAUSE loss of life if you ever drive a car. So, you know, if you're going to do dumb sophistry about how one can't ignore any lost lives, then are you consistent about it? You wouldn't be a hypocrite, would you?

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
You have actually described sympathy for the dead and injured as 'idiotic appeal to emotion', as a counter to my charge that you lack empathy. I'm not sure that's working.
Duly noted, you're still trying to make me chase that derail. I actually have zero intention to. Support your point, or don't, but dumb browbeating about my supposed lack of empathy isn't support. Come back when you learn this newfangled "logic" thing. It's only been around for some 2500 years, after all.

In the meantime, sure, you can imagine anything about me that floats your boat.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Firstly, is there a reason why you have chosen to compare government spending on counterterrorism against GDP, as against, say, government spending, or even defence spending?
Because it shows exactly how much the average brit is sacrificing for that OMG Islam scare.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Could it possibly be because you wanted to make a rather dishonest statistical point?
You can stop projecting, really. Plus, even that would be head and shoulders above the browbeating and word games you've been doing. Statistics at least involves elementary arithmentic

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Secondly, you are again stating that the UK government, supported by the intelligence services, is completely wrong about the threat posed by terrorism.
Nope, I disagree with YOUR unsupported interpretation of it. Again, stop trying to pretend that whoever disagrees with your postulates is disagreeing with THE GOVERNMENT.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
On what are you basing this conclusion? Is it your contention that there will be no more terrorist attacks in the UK?
Ah, there we go with that lie about how my claim is somehow 'no threat at all' or 'no more attacks'. Just because you ask later exactly where did I catch you lying. Catch.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Thirdly, no-one except you has said that the population of the UK is 'incredibly safe' from terror attacks. On what are you basing that assessment?
On that 1 in 12 MILLION chance to die in a terror attack in a year. Granted, that's for the whole of EU, but even if ALL deaths in the EU in 2017 were in the UK that still puts it at an incredibly low level when you divide by the population.

AGAIN, by way of comparison, the chance of dying in a road accident in the UK in a year is 1 in 35,483.

Source, AGAIN, here: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_...ta/asr2018.pdf

Because I just know about two messages from now you're going to play dumb again and forget what was even discussed

But at any rate, if someone had some fear of motorized vehicles, and dedicated as much time arguing on the Internet about how OMG THINK OF THE DEAD, as you two are doing, pretty much everyone would call them irrational. But when we're talking about a risk that's literally 2 to 3 orders of magnitude lower, apparently you think I need any more reason to call it "incredibly safe"

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Again with the 'deaths are insignificant' shtick. Do you care about people at all?
Aaand the guy without an argument tries to derail it into whether I care about people instead. The tally is, what, 3 so far in a single message?

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Well, firstly, this is the British government, and you have yet to show they are scaremongering.
No, silly, you still aren't the British government. Not that ANY government would be some sacrosanct thing that's beyond questioning, but YOU are not it. Stop pretending that anyone disagreeing with your interpretations verily must be contradicting the government.

Unless you're Gordon Brown, I guess

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
If you think that deaths and injuries are 'lame', then again you are displaying your callous contempt for human life, and, again, shame on you.
Four...

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
My mistake. You said it was 'nearly inexistent'.
Bingo. And it only took you taking the operative word out of it to have your ridiculozs strawman.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
So you don't care about the deaths and injuries caused by the actual attacks, because they are 'nearly inexistent'.
Five...

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
You also continue to ignore the number of foiled attacks, presumably becaue that would spoil your narrative.
Considering it was addressed not just in A message, but in the very message you quoted, claiming that I ignore it would be a further lie on your part.

Again, just because I don't get the dumb knee-jerk reaction you expect, doesn't mean I'm ignoring it.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
How many deaths would it take for you to acknowledge that terrorism exists? What is your threshold here?
Six...

You really ARE determined to derail it into chasing that dumb browbeating of yours, aren't you? Beats actually having a point, I guess. But nope, I'm still not biting. You ARE starting to amuse me though, so I'll grant you that.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Do please quote my 'LIES', though. It would be interesting to see how many of my actual posts you have really read, and then how much of them you have understood.
Yep, you're funny. You try to pawn off again that mis-representation that I claimed there'll be no attacks, and for extra points, it's in the SAME message where you do admit that you had taken out the operative word 'nearly' from my actual claim. You go "my mistake", but don't bother to actually correct it or stop trying to still push the same distorted version anyway, even in the same message. Then ask where did you LIE. Well, when you took out bits of what was actually claimed, to make it a completely different claim, and then tried to push the same distorted version again even after it's been pointed out to you, that's when
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; Yesterday at 12:45 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:41 PM   #536
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,218
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
I said nothing about the number of official Islamic faith schools. Why did you think I mentioned any number for those?
Because here's the actual claim you've made: "The lives and the prospects of children (that's everyone in their formative years) would be vastly better for having a proper education in real schools rather than a forced religious education in Madrassa's."

So how does that "rather than" work, if the two are not, in fact, a replacement for each other?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:15 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.