Is Islam right for Ireland?

wes

wes wrote: »

Another straw man argument. Read the post I was replying to, where the poster was doing exactly that. Honestly, the number of posters not arguing in good faith on this thread is at epidemic levels. Its really rather sad and quite frankly pathetic that so many are unable to actual deal with what was said, as opposed to what you chose to imagine was said. Your clearly able to read and why you chose to ignore the context of my post is beyond me, but its astonishing you bothered to put so much effort into misrepresenting what I posted.

You responded to a quote stating that there are no Christian groups murdering people within Europe, and talked about Christian groups who had killed people outside of Europe. And that's repeated in your previous objection before that, except for the reference to the Magdalene Laundries. But your main examples of Christian extremism related to the US or groups well outside of Europe.

Fact is, I didn't ignore the context of your post... I just chose to talk about Europe since that's the context that you originally replied to although chose to expand it beyond European borders. I spoke about extremism in both religions, since that was relevant to your post.

The funny thing is that you accuse me of taking your post out of context, and yet your own response to the other post went on a tangent talking about Christian extremism outside of Europe, as opposed to what you actually quoted.

Perhaps apply some of your own criticisms to yourself? :rolleyes:

wes

Gravelly wrote: »

Read almost any liberal / leftist opinion piece nowadays and this is obvious, to deny it is disingenuous at best. Google "straight white male" for a slew of newspaper articles, opinion pieces, blogs, even plays that use terms to describe this group in ways that would have "liberals" marching in their pussy hats if it was said about literally any other group.

"On hating the straight white male"

"White Men the most dehumanising insult of our times"

A few people online are having a go at "straight white males" and you seem to think your being oppressed. The persecution complex is hugely amusing in the context of a thread like this.

Can you point to a single government policy anywhere in the world that explicitally targets "straight white males"? I don't know of a single one and also most governments where "white" people are majority are also majority "straight white males", not to mention most CEO's are also "straight white males", and in fact most positions of power as well (and in other countries "straight males" of the majority group tend run the show). Seriously your taking the piss here.

A few people online having a go at "straight white males" doesn't mean your persecuted, especially seeing as that group are the ones who are running the show.

Gravelly

wes wrote: »

A few people online are having a go at "straight white males" and you seem to think your being oppressed. The persecution complex is hugely amusing in the context of a thread like this.

Can you point to a single government policy anywhere in the world that explicitally targets "straight white males"? I don't know of a single one and also most governments where "white" people are majority are also majority "straight white males", not to mention most CEO's are also "straight white males", and in fact most positions of power as well (and in other countries "straight males" of the majority group tend run the show). Seriously your taking the piss here.

A few people online having a go at "straight white males" doesn't mean your persecuted, especially seeing as that group are the ones who are running the show.

You're a great man for the 'oul strawman.

• Can you point to anywhere I said straight white men were oppressed?
  
• Can you point to anywhere I said I was oppressed?
  
• Can you point to anywhere I said any government oppressed straight white males?
  
• Can you point to anywhere I mentioned CEO's or positions of power?

You're some chancer.

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

You responded to a quote stating that there are no Christian groups murdering people within Europe, :

This is the first post I replied too:

JohnMc1 wrote: »

How is Christianity dangerous towards gays and Women? Believing in Traditional Marriage is not endangering gays. How is it dangerous to Women? FFS look at a Calendar before opening your mouth again. Look how many feast days Mary gets. Look how many special masses and events are in her honor. Look how many Women saints there are in Christianity.

For the love of God if you're going to cop the "Religion is stupid" attitude while pretending to be intelligent then atleast act like you know what you're talking about.

Christianity is no where near being horrible to Gays and Women that Islam is.

I won't bother reading the rest of your post, you clearly going out of your way to misrepresent what I am saying. Another poster changing the goal post later on the in thread is quite frankly neither here nor there, but it is par for course you would choose to ignore what I actually responded to in the first place. Context is important.

wes

wes wrote: »

I won't bother reading the rest of your post, you clearly going out of your way to misrepresent what I am saying. Another poster changing the goal post later on the in thread is quite frankly neither here nor there, but it is par for course you would choose to ignore what I actually responded to in the first place. Context is important.

Pure deflection.

Dude89

I'm amazed members of the Muslim faith found 500,000 euro so quickly to buy a patch of land that went up for sale across from the community center where they're currently using.

wes

Gravelly wrote: »

You're a great man for the 'oul strawman.

• Can you point to anywhere I said straight white men were oppressed?
  
• Can you point to anywhere I said I was oppressed?
  
• Can you point to anywhere I said any government oppressed straight white males?
  
• Can you point to anywhere I mentioned CEO's or positions of power?

You're some chancer.

So you don't think white men are oppressed. Fair enough, so care to explain why you keep bring up "straight white males" and how the left is mean to them, in this thread, which has nothing to do with the current topic? It seemed to me you think "straight white males" are oppressed, why else bring that group up at all in this thread? Care to explain your reasoning?

Also, the the examples about laws and ceo's were questions, I didn't attribute those positions to you. Asking a question is not "straw manning". Seriously, you need to look up what that term means before posting.

Gravelly

wes wrote: »

So you don't think white men are oppressed. Fair enough, so care to explain why you keep bring up "straight white males" and how the left is mean to them, in this thread, which has nothing to do with the current topic? It seemed to me you think "straight white males" are oppressed, why else bring that group up at all in this thread? Care to explain your reasoning?

Also, the the examples about laws and ceo's were questions, I didn't attribute those positions to you. Asking a question is not "straw manning". Seriously, you need to look up what that term means before posting.

"Blah, blah, you said something mean, blah blah, here's something you didn't say that I'm going to argue against as if you had said it, blah, blah"

Chancer!

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

Pure deflection.

Everyone of your replies have been fundamentally dishonest about what i posted. Its amazing to see you put so much effort in being wrong, even when it has been pointed out.

Kotek Besar

Dude89 wrote: »

I'm amazed members of the Muslim faith found 500,000 euro so quickly to buy a patch of land that went up for sale across from the community center where they're currently using.

I know, right. Muslims are meant to be poor. Definitely something fishy there.

wes

Gravelly wrote: »

"Blah, blah, you said something mean, blah blah, here's something you didn't say that I'm going to argue against as if you had said it, blah, blah"

Chancer!

I asked you some questions, and I have no idea why you brought up "straight white males", seeing as the thread has nothing to do with that group, nor did I bring them up, when you replied to me. Seems to me you have some kind of persecution complex, why else would you go off on a random tangent about "straight white males"?

WinnyThePoo

Gravelly wrote: »

"Blah, blah, you said something mean, blah blah, here's something you didn't say that I'm going to argue against as if you had said it, blah, blah"

Chancer!

Well this is mature.

Gravelly

wes wrote: »

I asked you some questions, and I have no idea why you brought up "straight white males", seeing as the thread has nothing to do with that group, nor did I bring them up, when you replied to me. Seems to me you have some kind of persecution complex, why else would you go off on a random tangent about "straight white males"?

Keep deflecting there, eventually you can storm off and pretend I didn't address your "points" as you've done to every other poster you argue with.

Like I said, a chancer.

Gravelly

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Well this is mature.

As mature as replying to every post with a silly one-liner?

WinnyThePoo

Gravelly wrote: »

As mature as replying to every post with a silly one-liner?

Every post?.. I'm sure you can back that up.

Gravelly

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Every post?.. I'm sure you can back that up.

I'm sure I couldn't care less.

wes

Gravelly wrote: »

Keep deflecting there, eventually you can storm off and pretend I didn't address your "points" as you've done to every other poster you argue with.

Like I said, a chancer.

You addressed nothing actually. I asked multiple questions and you ignored every single one, and instead accused me of "straw manning" you and accused me of being a "chancer" and now accusing me of "deflecting".

So again, care to explain why you brought up "straight white males"? The thread is not about that group?

As for storming off, I did no such thing, and I simply have better things to be doing than replying to posts that have don't actually address what I said or what I actually replied to. I have better things to be doing.

So, I look forward to your answering why you felt the need to bring up "straight white males" in this thread. You wouldn't want me to call you a "chancer" or say your are "deflecting" now would you .

JohnMc1

Dude89 wrote: »

I'm amazed members of the Muslim faith found 500,000 euro so quickly to buy a patch of land that went up for sale across from the community center where they're currently using.

Where are you? In Kilkenny they're willing to pay around €300K-500K for the land [right across from a Cemetery, a GAA club and Nowlan Park. And it will cost around €5 Million to build [the mosque, Minaretes, a mortuary, apartment complex for 2,000 people, cafe and islamic school. Kind of blows the "They're coming with only the shirts on their backs" narrative out of the waters.

wes

wes wrote: »

Everyone of your replies have been fundamentally dishonest about what i posted. Its amazing to see you put so much effort in being wrong, even when it has been pointed out.

Here's a little hint: You were quoted. The response was related to both the piece you quoted and your own reply. No misrepresentation. None.

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

Here's a little hint: You were quoted. The response was related to both the piece you quoted and your own reply. No misrepresentation. None.

You ignored the context of my posts and chose to double down. You quoted me so were full aware of the context of what I said, but you chose to ignore it. So yeah it was misrepresentation, deliberate and calculated and ongoing as well. I think the term "gas lighting" is appropriate here as well.

Gravelly

wes wrote: »

You addressed nothing actually. I asked multiple questions and you ignored every single one, and instead accused me of "straw manning" you and accused me of being a "chancer" and now accusing me of "deflecting".

So again, care to explain why you brought up "straight white males"? The thread is not about that group?

As for storming off, I did no such thing, and I simply have better things to be doing than replying to posts that have don't actually address what I said or what I actually replied to. I have better things to be doing.

So, I look forward to your answering why you felt the need to bring up "straight white males" in this thread. You wouldn't want me to call you a "chancer" or say your are "deflecting" now would you .

I know I'm wasting my time with you, as evidenced by your behaviour with all other posters - you are a disingenuous chancer, who only posts the kind of rubbish that you hope will impress those of a similar mindset.

If you really want to know why I brought it up, you merely have to look at the quoted post, if you can't understand the reference or context, then I suggest you shouldn't be engaging with the thread. But of course that's not what you want - you want to engage in long rambling strawman statements in order to drag the thread off-topic.

Enough. It's obvious that you don't care to respond to the actual content of the post or to defend your own statements. Instead, it's unrelated, misrepresented, dishonest, etc.

Fine. Forget it.

wes

Gravelly wrote: »

I know I'm wasting my time with you, as evidenced by your behaviour with all other posters - you are a disingenuous chancer, who only posts the kind of rubbish that you hope will impress those of a similar mindset.

Your the one who brought up "straight white males", and we still have no idea why. Also, you have some gall calling anyone else a "disingenuous chancer", seeing as you go on tangents that have nothing to do with the topic.

Gravelly wrote: »

If you really want to know why I brought it up, you merely have to look at the quoted post, if you can't understand the reference or context, then I suggest you shouldn't be engaging with the thread. But of course that's not what you want - you want to engage in long rambling strawman statements in order to drag the thread off-topic.

Your accusing me of dragging the thread off topic ? You are some bull****ter. You brought up "straight white males" not me. You dragged things off topic, not me. That is all you. Seriously, your clearly taking the piss at this point.

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

Enough. It's obvious that you don't care to respond to the actual content of the post or to defend your own statements.

Bull****, I will happily defend what I said and have done so multiples times on boards. What I won't do is defend a position, that I never took.

Gravelly

wes wrote: »

Your the one who brought up "straight white males", and we still have no idea why. Also, you have some gall calling anyone else a "disingenuous chancer", seeing as you go on tangents that have nothing to do with the topic.

"we" - I wasn't aware boards was a team event.

wes wrote: »

Your accusing me of dragging the thread off topic ? You are some bull****ter. You brought up "straight white males" not me. You dragged things off topic, not me. That is all you. Seriously, your clearly taking the piss at this point.

No one could accuse you of being unpredictable:

Gravelly wrote: »

Keep deflecting there, eventually you can storm off and pretend I didn't address your "points" as you've done to every other poster you argue with.

Like I said, a chancer.

wes

Gravelly wrote: »

"we" - I wasn't aware boards was a team event.

It was the royal "we" .

Gravelly wrote: »

No one could accuse you of being unpredictable:

I will give this to you, you are committed.

Gravelly

wes wrote: »

It was the royal "we" .



I will give this to you, you are committed.

I should be committed for bothering to waste my lunchtime responding to you!

wes

Gravelly wrote: »

I should be committed for bothering to waste my lunchtime responding to you!

Finally something I can agree with .

donegaLroad

Dude89 wrote: »

I'm amazed members of the Muslim faith found 500,000 euro so quickly to buy a patch of land that went up for sale across from the community center where they're currently using.

The Saudis are funding a lot of mosques across Europe and the US.

donegaLroad

donegaLroad wrote: »

The Saudis are funding a lot of mosques across Europe and the US.

There are a lot of organisations (Ahem.. nations) who are more interested in foreign development for Muslims than helping them while they are their "neighbors". Go figure. Anything that destabilizes the west is likely to help them, while removing any threats nearer to home.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not seeing some grand conspiracy... just some opportunism. Common enough among anyone involved in business, and it does make perfect sense to do.

murphthesmurf

JohnMc1 wrote: »

And it will cost around €5 Million to build [the mosque, Minaretes, a mortuary, apartment complex for 2,000 people, cafe and islamic school.

We're often told that Muslims don't integrate due to ghettoism. Yet here they are building their own ghetto. They'll hardly ever have to leave it. Their very own little peice of Islam. Surely in the interest of integration this shouldn't be allowed. But the local TD will know if he gets them on side he'll have guaranteed voters.

donegaLroad

murphthesmurf wrote: »

We're often told that Muslims don't integrate due to ghettoism. Yet here they are building their own ghetto. They'll hardly ever have to leave it. Their very own little peice of Islam. Surely in the interest of integration this shouldn't be allowed. But the local TD will know if he gets them on side he'll have guaranteed voters.

Until they run one of their own candidates in that constituency who will win hands down. The Islamic party in Belgium are running 28 candidates in the up-coming elections in different muslim areas of Brussels. Islam is a political religion.

JohnMc1

murphthesmurf wrote: »

We're often told that Muslims don't integrate due to ghettoism. Yet here they are building their own ghetto. They'll hardly ever have to leave it. Their very own little peice of Islam. Surely in the interest of integration this shouldn't be allowed. But the local TD will know if he gets them on side he'll have guaranteed voters.

Yep. What the bleeding hearts don't realize is that if this complex in Kilkenny goes through the St. John's parish of Kilkenny will be an instant No-Go zone [Dear Islam lovers. If Police,Fire and Medical are afraid to go into an area without Military support then it is a No Go Zone] People won't be able to visit the Cemetery that's right across the street from the site without either being harassed by them or hearing a call to prayer. They should be banned. If these are genuine refugees and they're only intending to be here for a year or two then they don't need them. They can pray in the lavish homes the Govt is giving them while our own are on the streets.

JohnMc1

donegaLroad wrote: »

Until they run one of their own candidates in that constituency who will win hands down. The Islamic party in Belgium are running 28 candidates in the up-coming elections in different muslim areas of Brussels. Islam is a political religion.

They're calling themselves the Islamic State iirc. [remember. these are the peace loving ones. I'm sure naming their party after the terrorist group was an honest mistake :rolleyes:] and they're planning on installing Sharia once in. They're already to separate Men and Women into different train cars.

JohnMc1

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Yep. What the bleeding hearts don't realize is that if this complex in Kilkenny goes through the St. John's parish of Kilkenny will be an instant No-Go zone [Dear Islam lovers. If Police,Fire and Medical are afraid to go into an area without Military support then it is a No Go Zone] People won't be able to visit the Cemetery that's right across the street from the site without either being harassed by them or hearing a call to prayer. They should be banned. If these are genuine refugees and they're only intending to be here for a year or two then they don't need them. They can pray in the lavish homes the Govt is giving them while our own are on the streets.

Refugees don't leave after a year or two. They're either here for the long term (decades) or forever. Oh, sure a minority do leave the country but it's a clear minority compared to the whole.

So, nope, we will have to deal with these issues somehow... although I suspect they'll be allowed to do whatever they wish until it's too late to stop them. You can't remove "rights" from people... Those on the Left would never stand for it...

Greyling

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Yep. What the bleeding hearts don't realize is that if this complex in Kilkenny goes through the St. John's parish of Kilkenny will be an instant No-Go zone.

Why would it be a no go zone? Is Clonskeagh a no go zone? Is South Circular Road a no go zone? Is Blanchardstown a no go zone? Stop talking bollox.

Odhinn

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Where are you? In Kilkenny they're willing to pay around €300K-500K for the land [right across from a Cemetery, a GAA club and Nowlan Park. And it will cost around €5 Million to build [the mosque, Minaretes, a mortuary, apartment complex for 2,000 people, cafe and islamic school. Kind of blows the "They're coming with only the shirts on their backs" narrative out of the waters.

why do you think the majority of muslims here are asylum seekers/refugees etc?

malinheader

Greyling wrote: »

Why would it be a no go zone? Is Clonskeagh a no go zone? Is South Circular Road a no go zone? Is Blanchardstown a no go zone? Stop talking bollox.

Parts of England where there is a big Islamic following are now trying to be able to enforce sharia law.but I suppose you think this is bollocks too.

Greyling

malinheader wrote: »

Parts of England where there is a big Islamic following are now trying to be able to enforce sharia law.but I suppose you think this is bollocks too.

Where the vast vast majority of mosques are there are no issues. There's no issues with any of the current mosques in Ireland. Why would this one be any different?

And yes, I do think you're talking bollox too.

malinheader

Greyling wrote: »

Where the vast vast majority of mosques are there are no issues. There's no issues with any of the current mosques in Ireland. Why would this one be any different?

I think the main word missing here is YET.

JohnMc1

Deleted User wrote: »

Refugees don't leave after a year or two. They're either here for the long term (decades) or forever. Oh, sure a minority do leave the country but it's a clear minority compared to the whole.

The refugee process should be reformed. Refugee status should not mean an indefinite stay. Sadly it will take either a civil war or a total collapse of our economy and welfare system to get rid of them.

So, nope, we will have to deal with these issues somehow... although I suspect they'll be allowed to do whatever they wish until it's too late to stop them. You can't remove "rights" from people... Those on the Left would never stand for it...

They'll just lock us up for mean tweets or anything that goes against their "Multiculturalism is wonderful" narrative.

Greyling

malinheader wrote: »

I think the main word missing here is YET.

The mosque in Clonskeagh has been there for 22 years with no negative effect. Relax the cacks and get out have a can and enjoy yourself.

Mutant z

If those applying for asylum are refused once they should be deported it makes no sense to hsve appeal after appeal while they remain in dp centres for years costing the state unnecessary millions in the process we either have an immigration system or we dont.

malinheader

Greyling wrote: »

The mosque in Clonskeagh has been there for 22 years with no negative effect. Relax the cacks and get out have a can and enjoy yourself.

I don't give a ****e how long it's been there. And you saying it had no negative affect is your opinion Don't know where you go but we don't go out here to have a can it comes in a glass.

Odhinn

JohnMc1 wrote: »

The refugee process should be reformed. Refugee status should not mean an indefinite stay. .

It doesn't, afaik. Needs to be renewed every 2-3 years.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Sadly it will take either a civil war or a total collapse of our economy and welfare system to get rid of them.

You're not a glass half full man, I take it.

Odhinn

malinheader wrote: »

I don't give a ****e how long it's been there. And you saying it had no negative affect is your opinion Don't know where you go but we don't go out here to have a can it comes in a glass.

So you're against our cultural traditions then?

malinheader

Odhinn wrote: »

So you're against our cultural traditions then?

It's because I love our cultural traditions I answered how I did to the question at the start of this thread. DEFINITELY NO.

Odhinn

malinheader wrote: »

It's because I love our cultural traditions I answered how I did to the question at the start of this thread. DEFINITELY NO.

No, to sexy cold cans? No, to the heart of what makes us irish? Without a medical excemption?


I'm feckin appalled.

Greyling

malinheader wrote: »

I don't give a ****e how long it's been there. And you saying it had no negative affect is your opinion Don't know where you go but we don't go out here to have a can it comes in a glass.

Your can comes in a glass? Sounds mad. Almost as mad as the rest of the ****e you're talking.

Odhinn

Odhinn wrote: »

No, to sexy cold cans? No, to the heart of what makes us irish? Without a medical excemption?


I'm feckin appalled.

Be appalled. I don't see how drinking from cans makes someone Irish. TBH I don't see the connection with bottles either... but then I consider being Irish more than drinking alcohol. go figure. :rolleyes: