I loled at "Muslims believe the same things as Christians so be more mad at them whilst Christians are the majority in power making law restricting your rights".

It must be hard when your opinions put you so far to one end of the political spectrum that you run out of adjectives to describe your opponents.

The BBC - Left
The Guardian - hard Left
The Mirror - even harder Left
Corbyn - extreme Left
The SPGB - ummmmm
The Communist Party - oh ****

Basically all these arguments (or variations there of) were made about the London Irish from 1900-1970ish.

Terrorist, Catholic zealots, corrupt, anti freedom of expression/women's rights and riddled with criminal behaviour have long been argued for that community with the same evidence and arguments you make here.

I'm surprised your focus has moved off this much more obvious, local and largescale threat to your way of life.

I repeat.

It is a fact that Muslims do all of the things that you dislike Christians doing to a greater extent, and that the evidence suggests that the only thing stopping them doing that in the UK currently is numbers.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/m...-homosexuality

http://76crimes.com/76-countries-whe...ty-is-illegal/

Therefore, is it not reasonable to expect you to dislike the religion itself, even if you don't feel threatened at the moment?

If not, why not?

The guardian, Independent and Mirror all sell a fraction of the Mail, Sun and Torygraph.

This is going to blow your woolworths mind, but I dont like any of the above as they are all to obviously biased in one direction or another to me.

You dont have the self awareness to see that its your opinions that fall most into absolute synchronicity with the opinions touted by a specific element of the media.

Ironically you then bracket anyone who disagrees with you into one massive blob of homogeneous lefty because that is exactly the tin foil hat us or them perspective foistered by the right wing press.

I dont need to know any of your dangerous open minded opinions as you are merely a proxy, I can cut straight to the source and just read the express.

Ad hominem

.......

As a Buddhist/Marxist/Stoic/Ignostic/Quantamist I am fully qualified to correct your classifications

The BBC - Liberal/Capitalist/Reformist - Foreign opinion is that of of UK Govt foreign office
The Guardian - Liberal/Capitalist/Reformist
The Mirror - Capitalist apologists/Clueless celebrity non news/analysis
Corbyn - Left of centre old school labour reformist
The SPGB - Not up to date on these, but suspect Marxist sect. As in this kind of thing. Left wing socialism Not that I necessarily disagree with it, I was often accused of being this, when an active revolutionary twenty years ago in The Socialist Party
The Communist Party - Not taken seriously by anybody anymore. I presume Stalinist.

Me too.

I'm against all religions equally. I'll take religious people as I find them individually.

Maybe if they has a majority in Britain they could do bad stuff just like Christians are doing now. But they aren't a majority. And they aren't doing the bad stuff Christians are doing.

This is true across Europe. Islamophobia is, ironically, a much bigger threat to European rights and values than extreme Islam, let alone just standard average Islam. And not even close.

I think that goes for the majority of people you label islamophobic

Is it not Islamophobic to suggest they may do bad things if they had a majority? This is after all a point that is made by islamophobes routinely before it is mocked and waved away cos "It will never happen" Christianity is and has been dying a slow and peaceful death for years and this country has gotten more and more tolerant and progressive and a much better and more inclusive place to live.

I am unclear which bad stuff christians are doing which muslims are not here in Europe but do we agree that its not Christians putting bombs on our public transport, beheading serviceman and plotting massacres on a routine basis?

Tolerating the intolerant has never been a European right or value.

Once a grown adult declares themselves to have a dangerously open mind, then the season is declared open.

Yep. Ignoring it works too.

Not at all, because creating the illusion of free thought in those that swallow your propaganda is absolutely political and absolutely an element of the right wing press block.

No one is more perfectly aligned with a specific element of medja perspective on certain issues than Rasta, and its no coincidence that he aslo believes he is a free thinker free of the mass shackles of liberalism.

Yet he is merely a proxy and its absolutely true I dont need to hear the opinions of the Express et al second hand from him.

At least there's a level of honest admission here, that you aren't willing to engage with the two sources I've posted.

Here's a map of countries where homosexuality is illegal. Notice anything?

http://76crimes.com/76-countries-whe...ty-is-illegal/

...and here's a report from a newspaper (which you concede is no further right than the centre), informing us of a poll demonstrating that 0% of British Muslims (most of whom would have been born here) approve of homosexuality.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/m...-homosexuality

Why don't you give us some opinions on these?

I'm in favour of drug legalisation, I'm a republican and believe that the UK should abandon the Royal Family, I am against the illegalisation of abortion and in favour of gay marriage. There isn't a single UK newspaper who's political outlook I would fall neatly under as I'm sure you'd like.

You on the other hand, have spent time typing up a little diatribe trying to justify the fact that you refuse to even look at independent sources, fact and evidence that might contradict your entrenched views.

I can say without a shred of conceit that I'm more open-minded than you.

You might be annoyed that I'm as confident in saying that as I am, but when you openly admit to refuse to read the evidence I provide from neutral sources, its not something that I really regret saying.

Dude wtf Im not even actively participating in that debate you have with Phil, not on specific issue anyway.

I was only debating your claims about the media and immigration and laughing at you for your dangerous mind comment.

Im not ignoring your links actively, I just dgaf about them.

Yet you can make claims about our open minded ness with no conceit based on a discussion we are not even having.

In fact tons and tons of conceit.

You are of course, articulating entirely sensible points, but you won't be listened to or engaged with; only given a justification about why your questions need not be answered.

To explain; I want to clarify what I sincerely believe about Phil, just for the record.

I think Phil is a good person, who means well.

However, I believe that Phil is essentially, a racist.

Not a 'hate-all-blacks/hate-people-who-are-different-from-me' stereotypical racist, but a racist who's upbringing and culture has led him to be helplessly worried that brown-skinned and black-skinned people are not, in fact, capable of achieving the same kind of free, tolerant, egalitarian and inclusive society that white Westerners are. One where we have equal rights for homosexuals, one where on the whole, we aim to include women in as many positions of power as we can. One where we scorn racial hatred and discrimination and so on.

As he looks at the news, as he looks at maps of the world highlighting countries where homosexuality is illegal (not one in Europe, yet almost all Muslim-dominated countries), he grows frustrated. He's not stupid, and he can't deny the obvious pattern. Phil's worried. After all, he's intelligent and free-thinking, but the rest of the world are a writhing mass of non-thinking plebs who lift their opinions directly from Fox News and the Daily Mail.

What ought Phil do when facts and evidence actually support his involuntary scepticism and worry about the capabilities of the Islamic world to become the peaceful, tolerant society that he'd like to live in?

And after all, if an intelligent man like him can't help but see evidence to the contrary of what he'd like to believe, then what about the stupid plebs who might actually find some factual basis for their dislike of Islam? (which of course, as they're stupid plebs, is based only on bigotry and couldn't possibly be based on the actions and beliefs of Muslims)

Phil wants the Islamic world to be a beacon of tolerance
Phil wants the Islamic world to be accepting of gays and women
Phil wants the Islamic world to be somewhere where free speech is valued

...but Phil just can't help but worry that it isn't, and that it won't be for quite a while to come, and that that fact, true though it is, will give dangerous ammunition for actual racists and bigots.

So what is he, part of the intelligentsia, to do?

In the end, Phil comes to the conclusion that the righteous thing to do in this situation is to essentially contribute to a noble lie. He believes that the right thing to do, given the terribly inconvenient facts that he's presented with, is to deny and obscure them, lest the plebs grow restless. Lest the writhing mass of stupidity that is the rest of the population (other than him and those who agree with him), are exposed to truths they can't handle.

That is why Phil will openly admit to disliking Christianity (which he, because of his upbringing, sees as white and Western) because Christians do XYZ.

and its why Phil will refuse to condemn Islam (which he, because of his upbringing, sees as non-white and non-Western) when Muslims do XYZ.

Phil will not give you an answer to your question S.K, because ultimately, he believes he's making the world a better place.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/m...-homosexuality

http://76crimes.com/76-countries-whe...ty-is-illegal/

At least I've managed to get you to admit it.

You, to use your words, "dgaf" about the well-being of homosexuals. Certainly not enough to defend their rights against people who will fight back at least.

...much as I thought.

You see a map that you think correlates intolerance of homosexuality with Muslim societies. I see a map that correlates it (apart from some ME states) with poverty.

Bear in mind that homosexuality between consenting adults was illegal in the UK (for example) until the late 1960s.


Correlation is not causation:

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

You cant actually infer anything about my attitude towards homosexuals just because I dgaf about two random links posted by you on the internet.

However its perfectly possible to infer much about you based on the fact that you can declare yourself more open minded than me based on a discussion we are not even having.

You are a really awkward guy with cripplingly bad self awareness.

They are two links showing that 0% of one of the fastest-growing proportions of the UK population approve of homosexuality, and a map showing that the area of the World that this population's ancestry belongs to collectively reviles homosexuality enough to make it illegal in almost all of their countries, as opposed to none in the Western world.

You can't not care about these issues and then claim to be passionate about gay rights worldwide. Its a logical impossibility.

FTFY

Feel free to meet me any time you like in London. You're more than welcome to join my friends and my girlfriend on a night out some time. You'd be staggered at their ethnic composition that's for sure!

(lol at the bolded - 'oh please just ignore the ones that don't fit with my theory'!)

Well, as we can see from the map ladies and gentlemen, the wealthy, developed and enlightened states of Ecuador, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Angola, Botswana, Ukraine and the DR Congo have all evolved to a state of well-being to realise that homosexuality is fine and dandy.

Whereas in contrast, the poor, struggling and developing nations of Malaysia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Egypt and Bahrain are all poor to be morally good.



You've certainly made me chuckle, but for anyone reading, I'd encourage you not to allow the humourous side of this chap's post to subtract from the real issue. As you can see, Jalfrezi was more than happy to intolerantly condemn the poor as stupid and immoral as long as it served his argument.

They aren't the majority. So why are we debating like they will ever be in our lifetimes. That's something my kids kids may have to worry about, but in all likelihood it will solve itself. By the time they become a significant portion they will become a cultural identity more than a religious one, just like Christianity in Europe.

Freedom of religion, freedom I expression, freedom of speech, equality in law, anti blasphemy laws, equality in action. All being eroded by Christian anti Muslim idiots.

As for terrorism, I literally couldn't care less. I'm considerably more likely of being run over crossing the street than be attacked by a terrorist. Not to mention I was against many things causing terrorism and extremism, like the Iraq war and the unflinching defence of Israel.

Can you do me a favour and stop wondering why no one is engaging the whole "here are a bunch of states not in Europe where laws are different" act?

It's because we're discussing Europe. That's why were ignoring it, its just a dumb flawed argument.

This post is super weird.

Ftr I just want to leave the middle east alone. Except when I transition through it on an etihad or emirates flight. Then all I want the middle east to do is let me buy a reasonably priced sandwich and bottle of water.

The tolerance and lack of is a debate not even worth getting into. I don't live there, I personally can't do anything about the place other than giving their airlines money, indirectly I'm fine with a hands off approach and just doing **** via the UN. When things go bad then rescue some refugees but most of all don't cause it to go bad.

It also has nothing to do with the debate over prejudice and racism on Europe, well tangentially it does but only because idiots think British Muslims are interchangeable with Saudi Muslims.

Jesus you are dumb.

The above just evinces your total lack of perspective and sense of self importance.

Just because I dont care about links some random posted on the internet in random debate no 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000, does not mean anything in determining amount of passion about gay rights.