Is Islam right for Ireland?

SnakePlissken

ArthurDayne wrote: »

EDIT : p.s. I note that you have moved off Islam and rotated to the topic of education levels . . .

I most certainly have not as my last post before you made this claim clearly shows.

Midlife

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Who's we?

So you ask questions but don't answer them?

Nice that it leaves you free to post whatever inaccuracies you want and never have to return to them.

Makes being wrong easier I guess.

So please justify your original claim, then post the links you've conveniently forgotten about, then we can look at changing the subject again.

I mean you seem to love proving me wrong. So you'd obviously jump at the chance to prove me wrong..if you could.

4068ac1elhodqr

ArthurDayne wrote: »

So, as the Irish in Ireland become more qualified, a new critical mass is needed to take on the jobs which the Irish are now over-qualified to do. That is where, to a significant extent, our immigrant population has slotted in.

EDIT : p.s. I note that you have moved off Islam and rotated to the topic of education levels . . .

This is a common mis-conception, upto 30-50% of people today will have their jobs replaced due to automation by 2030.

In the US once trucks become automated on the freeways, 3.5m drivers will be on the scrapheap overnight. (8m in it's associated industry) drivers earning $40avg but many at 70k.

Only those with the very, very highest levels of education, experience, fluency will have a chance of surving the pending 'gig economy'.

Ordinary degrees with 60k worth of debt behind them, have much less merit than in previous generation. After all if 40% of the pop are graduates, the entire 40% can't all except to climb to 6-figure management/senior salaries.

These fresh graduates will also dispose over half their income, on sub-standard urban housing as there simply isn't enough to accomodate the current workforce.

Midlife

Liana Scruffy Jell-o wrote: »

This is a common mis-conception, upto 30-50% of people today will have their jobs replaced due to automation by 2030.

In the US once trucks become automated on the freeways, 3.5m drivers will be on the scrapheap overnight. (8m in it's associated industry) drivers earning $40avg but many at 70k.

Only those with the very, very highest levels of education, experience, fluency will have a chance of surving the pending 'gig economy'.

Ordinary degrees with 60k worth of debt behind them, have much less merit than in previous generation. After all if 40% of the pop are graduates, the entire 40% can't all except to climb to 6-figure management/senior salaries.

These fresh graduates will also dispose over half their income, on sub-standard urban housing as there simply isn't enough to accomodate the current workforce.

Ordinary degrees with 60k debt. What country are you in?

Timberrrrrrrr

Liana Scruffy Jell-o wrote: »

This is a common mis-conception, upto 30-50% of people today will have their jobs replaced due to automation by 2030.

In the US once trucks become automated on the freeways, 3.5m drivers will be on the scrapheap overnight. (8m in it's associated industry) drivers earning $40avg but many at 70k.

Only those with the very, very highest levels of education, experience, fluency will have a chance of surving the pending 'gig economy'.

Ordinary degrees with 60k worth of debt behind them, have much less merit than in previous generation. After all if 40% of the pop are graduates, the entire 40% can't all except to climb to 6-figure management/senior salaries.

These fresh graduates will also dispose over half their income, on sub-standard urban housing as there simply isn't enough to accomodate the current workforce.

I've been hearing this scaremongering since the 80's

ArthurDayne

Liana Scruffy Jell-o wrote: »

This is a common mis-conception, upto 30-50% of people today will have their jobs replaced due to automation by 2030.

In the US once trucks become automated on the freeways, 3.5m drivers will be on the scrapheap overnight. (8m in it's associated industry) drivers earning $40avg but many at 70k.

Only those with the very, very highest levels of education, experience, fluency will have a chance of surving the pending 'gig economy'.

Ordinary degrees with 60k worth of debt behind them, have much less merit than in previous generation. After all if 40% of the pop are graduates, the entire 40% can't all except to climb to 6-figure management/senior salaries.

These fresh graduates will also dispose over half their income, on sub-standard urban housing as there simply isn't enough to accomodate the current workforce.

And, with all respect, this is a common misconception about automation. People tend to talk about automation like it's some kind of new concept -- but it isn't. The Luddites went round smashing up machines during the Industrial Revolution fearing that they would eliminate the need for workers . . . yet. . . despite the fact that since the Industrial Revolution there has been an explosion of machinery and technology doing things better than man, there are more people working today than ever before.

Automation merely recalibrates the economy. Saying that 30-50% of today's jobs will be eliminated by such&such year is not the same as saying that 30-50% of people will have absolutely no employment prospects by such&such year. Also, producers can only automate when it actually makes sense to do so from a profitability perspective. If jobs get wiped out by robots -- then to whom will producers sell their products? After all, a business needs to have a market to survive, therefore displaced workers would gravitate toward producing something that satisfies a different demand -- thereby becoming the market which buys the goods which the robots produce.

SnakePlissken

SnakePlissken wrote: »

I honestly feel repulsed having to write this, not only by the thought of those poor girls, but also the understanding you're now going to attempt to deflect from this fact

Midlife wrote: »

I mean you seem to love proving me wrong. So you'd obviously jump at the chance to prove me wrong..if you could.

Predictably you don't appear to want to actually discuss the thread title. But just to reiterate, I made a claim re the statistics pertaining to Muslims and grooming gangs, you denied same and asked for links, I posted quantifiable statistics from the UK census and Ministry of Justice, you ignored same then asked repeatedly to again discuss my original statement, it's become boring.

Taytoland

bubblypop wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Always makes me laugh when you hear the excuses for Muslim or black gang crime. It must be poverty, they have it rough as if millions of white people aren't living rough lives or in poverty on council estates, take responsibility for your own actions.

You will find a high percentage  of white people that live in poverty  on council estates commit crime too.
Socioeconomic reasons are fair more likely to rsuslt in criminal behavior than the colour of one's skin

Missed. Point. The poor me mentality and blaming everything on poverty or skin colour is just excuses. No one forces you to knife someone to death.

Midlife

SnakePlissken wrote: »

But just to reiterate

Great that you're willing to discuss it

SnakePlissken wrote: »

I made a claim re the statistics pertaining to Muslims and grooming gangs

Yes, you said that...

SnakePlissken wrote: »

84% of all convicted child sex groomers in the UK are Asian, mostly Pakistani.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...itish-society/

The link does not back up your claim, I've explained why.

Then my general problem with this thread is that your claim was thanked 5 times so people are happily thanking and spreading disinformation that the 4-5% of British who are Muslim are responsible for 84% of child grooming cases. It's a very deliberate and subtle move by the telegraph.

Do you understand the error yet?

Just to walk you through it again.

Your claim that...

SnakePlissken wrote: »

84% of all convicted child sex groomers in the UK are Asian, mostly Pakistani.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...itish-society/

Is based on a study where a (ironically, British-Pakastani) research group called Quilliam said 84% of grooming gang members were Asian.

The study you refer to was based on the total 264 gang grooming cases between 2005 and 2017.

All fine so far. Except the study adds that white offenders tend to act alone and so weren't considered in this number of of gang instances. Then a separate scaremongering piece in the telegraph mentions 3000 grooming cases in the last year alone. So you can see while there's a weird and disturbing spike in grooming gangs amoung the British-Pakistani population, the vast vast majority of grooming cases are perpetrated by individuals so realistically gangs are a tiny part of the overall child grooming problem.

You logic means there's been only 264 cases in 12 years in the UK and that without Muslims there'd be about 20 in 12 years.

You really should be more responsible than posting things like that.

SnakePlissken wrote: »

84% of all convicted child sex groomers in the UK are Asian, mostly Pakistani.

It's simply not true and a really really bad thing to put out there.

I tried to counter it by pointing out that 85% of child abuse cases in the UK are carried out by white people.

I think you didn't understand then but probably do now.

Midlife

Taytoland wrote: »

Missed. Point. The poor me mentality and blaming everything on poverty or skin colour is just excuses. No one forces you to knife someone to death.

of course not.

I'm wondering how you explain it though, the correlation between poverty and crime? Genuinely. You're making a point, I'm just asking for an expansion.

SnakePlissken

Midlife wrote: »

It's simply not true and a really really bad thing to put out there.

I'll try and state this as simply as I can so hopefully you can get your head around it.

The thread title asks, is Islam right for Ireland, correct?

My answer is a clear no, based, not solely, on the below proven statistics:

SnakePlissken wrote: »

According to the available census data from the UK (2011) Muslim men account for approximately 2.2% of the overall population.

www.ons.gov.uk...ralidentity/religion

Yet according to available data from the UK's Ministry of Justice, 12% of all convicted rapists serving time during the year 2014 were Muslim.

https://assets.publish...ales-rape-muslim.doc

When it comes to grooming gangs the statistics are even more damning, with 75% of all convicted groomers coming from this same 2.2% sector of society.

www.channel4.c...f-sexual-abuse-gangs

Do I believe all Muslims are rapists? Absolutely not, of the UK's approximately 1,330,000 adult male Muslims, the vast, vast majority have never been sexually abusive, yet why they are demonstrably four times more likely to commit abuse than other members of society needs further discussion in a level headed manner.

I don't for one moment believe Muslim attitudes toward women are incapable of improving to what one could consider "Western Ideals", but it will not happen if people such as yourself continue to claim there isn't an issue.

As you're continuously attempting to get one over me, and failing miserably by not providing any links to discredit my claims, would you like to discuss the above or continue to deflect and outright lie by posting complete fabrications such as the below?

Midlife wrote: »

and 100% of pedophile rings are white.

Midlife wrote: »

The age of consent nowadays in Japan is 13. Think about the things that makes legal.

SnakePlissken wrote: »

The age of consent of 13 only applies if the boy in the relationship is under 15, this is commonly called a Romeo and Juliet law, in Japan, any male over 15 who has sexual intercourse with a girl under 15 is committing a felony.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-age-of-consent-so-low-in-Japan

But I'm pleased you brought up the age of consent as it highlights the thread title greatly. The majority of Muslim countries have no actual age of consent, the only stipulation being sex is not permitted outside of marriage, and what age can a child be permitted to marry? As young as 10 in Iran.]

So, are you going to give a yes or no answer to the thread title or do you wish to deflect from the topic at hand yet again.

4068ac1elhodqr

ArthurDayne wrote: »

And, with all respect, this is a common misconception about automation. People tend to talk about automation like it's some kind of new concept -- but it isn't. The Luddites went round smashing up machines during the Industrial Revolution fearing that they would eliminate the need for workers . . . yet. . . despite the fact that since the Industrial Revolution there has been an explosion of machinery and technology doing things better than man, there are more people working today than ever before.

Automation merely recalibrates the economy. Saying that 30-50% of today's jobs will be eliminated by such&such year is not the same as saying that 30-50% of people will have absolutely no employment prospects by such&such year. Also, producers can only automate when it actually makes sense to do so from a profitability perspective. If jobs get wiped out by robots -- then to whom will producers sell their products? After all, a business needs to have a market to survive, therefore displaced workers would gravitate toward producing something that satisfies a different demand -- thereby becoming the market which buys the goods which the robots produce.

Luddites that compare the 4th Industrial Reveloution to the wheel, tractor or other dumb machines are misguided. Experts (futurists and technologists) recongnise that the next level of self-learning, self-improving, self-repairing, self-aware, autonomous, cloud-connected, iot-beacon, near-quantum, 24/7 machines are a real threat.

Your right about the 'profitability perspective', this will be the key driver. How can you compete against something that only requires WD40 to run.

Yes (some) new roles may appear, but moves are already being planned for UBI in relation to this new redundancy. The folks in retail today are loosing jobs on a daily basis, they can't all go out and learn JS/Php/C++ or advanced sciences unless they have the motivation, funds and aptitude to do so.

Even if you assume that some cultural groups from SEAsia/MEast/NA (change vastly) to allow their all their lady folk to assimilate, get an advanced education, escape a crime-loop, and seek fulll-time work in a brexitous EU...

If (any) religon (or other cause) restricts their 24/7 'gig' availabilty/performance it will be seen as a major drawback to employment. A zero-hour gig economy cares very little about rights or reasons, only profit.

Midlife

SnakePlissken wrote: »

I'll try and state this as simply as I can so hopefully you can get your head around it.

The thread title asks, is Islam right for Ireland, correct?

My answer is a clear no, based, not solely, on the below proven statistics:

Lol, I say that a claim you made was simply not true and in pretty poor form to make and that's your response.

Back to the thread title, other links, other comments. Blah blah blah.

Stop deflecting.

Deal with my last post.

I've told you numerous times. I'll look at those links when they work and when you back up your original statement. Happy to take things one at a time.

SnakePlissken wrote: »

84% of all convicted child sex groomers in the UK are Asian, mostly Pakistani.

Nearly 12 hours ago I pointed out how that was wrong and asked you about it.

You've posted in this thread 15 times since then but will not address it.

Now back it up and point out the error in my previous claim or stop replying to me.

It's that simple. Provide evidence for your claim.

Otherwise what is the point in myself or anyone else on a discussion forum engaging in conversation with you. 12 hours, 15 replies and you won't answer a straight question. Why should anyone bother with you?

SnakePlissken

Midlife wrote: »

Why should anyone bother with you?

Ditto

Midlife

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Ditto

Make that 16 times without addressing it.

4068ac1elhodqr

Midlife wrote: »

Make that 16 times without addressing it.

Only just seen this link (the full link is actually: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/09/grooming-gangs-muslim-men-failed-integrate-british-society/ )

Was the other poster's point vastly wrong? Compared to what his linked article in the Independent had published (extract below):

...Researchers, who analysed 264 convictions of 'grooming gang members since 2005', had initially expected to find Asians had been unfairly singled out. However, they discovered that 222 of those convicted, or 84 per cent, were men of Asian origin. Only 22 were black and 18 were white with two offenders not having an identified ethnicity. The findings are in stark contrast to the fact Asians make up only seven per cent of the UK population, the report said.

...the gangs of mainly British-Pakistani men "have been influenced by the cultural conditions of their home country..."

Roger Hassenforder

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Either.

This sort of thing?
From one proponent:

Dr Selim, who lectures in the Mater Dei Institute and Trinity College, also said that the state’s RSE (Relationships and Sexuality Education) programme was problematic for Muslim students, saying the programme had “crucial differences” with Islam, (which) forbids pre- and extramarital sexual relations, whereas RSE perceives sexual relations outside wedlock as part of normal practices.”

He suggests there is “a clash of values” also between Islam and “traditional ways of teaching PE”. In some schools, “under the guise of health and safety, Muslim girls are obliged to take off their headscarves for PE classes, which is not acceptable to them”.

Where schools were “persistent”, they should “employ a female PE teacher and provide students with a sports hall not accessible to men during times when girls are at play. They should also not be visible to men while at play.”

Dr Selim also spoke about teaching and playing music, saying that some kinds would be prohibited, but “if music is performed using non-tuneable percussion instruments such as drums, most Muslims will have no problem”.

Very progressive stuff for a country trying to mitigate the misery Catholicism visited on our education...

Roger Hassenforder

ArthurDayne wrote: »

It's disappointing that you respond to this with accusations of "peak leftyliberalism" -- I had believed that we were speaking as adults rather than pathetically slapping labels on eachother's heads. I think I've seen some posts of yours before and from, what I have seen, I would have thought this lazy practice was beneath you.

Anyway, just so that I am not misrepresenting you -- I take it from your post that in the scenario where two infants, one male and one female, are both subject to circumcision of the foreskin / clitoris under modern medical conditions -- you are telling me that one of the procedures is seriously abhorrent to you, but the other is absolutely fine. To me they are both wrong -- notwithstanding whether one has more serious implications in later life, or whether the procedures are carried out on an operating table or a rock in the wilderness.

It would seem to me that, while you are very happy to condemn the mutilation of a female's genitals (and rightly so), you seem strangely reluctant to condemn the exact same practice when it comes to infant males. It's even more interesting that you bring up the medical reasons, despite the fact many religious traditions (including Christian and Jewish) do it as a cultural/religious norm which was borne out of a sexual context and not a medical one. So, to do you a courtesy I repeat what I said -- do you condemn the mutilation of a child's foreskin for non-medical reasons.

If not -- why not?

You're right, i havent distinguished myself here!
Accept my apologies, it was rather childish.


Re FGM v circumcision, while the rationale for both is originally grounded in superstition and nonsense, I cannot condemn both equally. The latter has some medical benifet, notwithstanding it is also carried out for certaibn medical reasons. FGM has absolutely no positives. It exists solely to control female sexuality. They are incomparable.

FWIW, I'm snipped (maternal religious reasons) but I didn't have my son snipped. It's not I feel I am "mutilated", I see it more of a consent issue.
I dont see circumcision as a mutilation. FGM on the otherhand...
(That might answer your question?)

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: From the charter...

What is After Hours?
After hours is the place to come on boards where general discussion can be light-hearted. The aim here is to have a bit of a laugh and not to piss anybody off while doing so.

I think that at over 3000+ posts, it's fair to say that this thread has gone past it's sell by date.