The EU debate - Part III

I disagree, I think it's part and parcel of the same issue.

Many disagree which way the press and the system is slanted and feel there's a left wing bias. Arguing over that is pointless and divisive. The common ground is that people agree that it certainly acts to curtail information and free speech and is divisive.

The unifying factor is that most agree it's wrong and needs resolving. Journalists should go back to reporting the news, not pushing agendas.

 

"All [or most] Muslims are terrorists."
This is ridiculous and anybody that says it is ridiculous.

"Muslims want Sharia law."
For the most part, they do. The source provided in this article to try and deny this claim clearly shows this. Using Lebanon as an example isn't ideal as Lebanon is quite young in regards to it being a Muslim country, it has an equal split in Shias and Sunnis which isn't very common.

"They beat their women."
Getting away from the feminist spin on this quote and we soon come to see that there is no answer provided to refute this.

"They are stuck in the Stone Age, and they want to stay there."
This answer is reasonable if the quote is about government oppression, but the quote is quite arbitrary and the answer even more so.

"Muhammad was a ****phile and his wife was only 6 [or 7]."
Yes, he was. married Aisha when she was 6 and thigh ****ed her until she was 9. Using the excuse that 'Oh this happened a long time ago, it was acceptable back then!' just proves that an unreformed Islam is, going by the previous quote, 'stuck in the Stone Age'.

"Muslims take child brides and rape children."
This comes to pass due to the examples of Muhammad who is seen as the perfect human amongst Muslims. Indeed, not a single Middle Eastern country listed in the top 20 nations for child brides, but of those top 20 countries 8 (40%) are Muslim majority countries, the rest are countries with significant Islamic populations or the dumbass fanatical Christians. Besides, the figure for the Middle East is still 1 in 5 according to the source. There is also no rebuttal to the second part of the quote, I think we have seen in this country how prevalent cases of mass grooming are amongst Muslims, with 90% of those convicted for this crime being Muslim despite only making up approximately 5% of the population.

 

On the topic of some media outlets focusing on the nationality or religion of some criminals, isn't it obvious why they do it? Think of it like this, when a member of the tribe does something wrong, they are punished. But when someone from another tribe comes in and does something wrong, there's hell to pay. This is natural.

 

You mean like a UVF terrorist informer getting kneecapped by his former colleagues, or a nationalist walking down a loyalist street getting shot dead?

Yeah them Christians are dog rough.

 

It's not just the muslims thing, it's most news. Nothing will ever change DMD. After the whole "voicemail" tapping saga and yet **** all happened even AFTER the disgraceful way they treated the Millie Dowler family. So everyone lies low for a bit and then it's business as usual.

What do you think inside when a minister or MP is asked by a political commentator about the way the press are dealing with a particular story and they say something like "It's important we have a free press in our society"?
Mine is "self preservation from a ****ing sell out coward"

 

Challenge the paragraph you labelled as nonsense or shut the **** up, simple as.

Crack on love x

 

I don't really know anything about your references.

 

So you've gone for staying as a pointless, disruptive ****er. Fair enough, you had a free choice.

What you've tediously tried to turn into a challenge, was me pointing out a paragraph of yours looked like gibberish to me. A non-****wit would have brushed it off or reworded it. A nobhead would try to spend a couple of replies trying to spin it into a 'challenge'.

 

It's not just the news media, have a look at the comedians where so many have a clear left wing bias instead of focusing on humour, but do little to inform.

I've enjoyed watching CNN, because their very obvious bias to Clinton was laughable, particularly as they desperately tried to deny it. Fox is biased, and even less slick, but at least they don't make too much of a pretense to being otherwise.

The shock and denial from many in the media after brexit and trump was palpable. A few understood their part, and clearly regretted it, but like you, I don't see much evidence of change.

 

That's OK, you'd probably find out about my references the same way you'd find out about the ones you posted, just that your "tribal" analogy looks a lot like what happens in Christian nations, like the UK or maybe the Ukraine.

 

Are you ****ing serious!?...

Cretinous bullshit. WTF are you babbling on about!?....

 

Some good points but your last point is either misinformation or deliberately slipping in terms like "mass grooming" so you can quote a figure of 90%, to mislead.

The report for the children's commissioner found there were 1,514 perpetrators of child sex abuse. Of these, 545 were white, 415 were Asian and 244 were black. The ethnicity of 21% of perpetrators was not recorded. Attempts to analyse the Asian figure further runs into problems. Just 35 of the 415 Asians are recorded as having Pakistani heritage and thus highly likely to be Muslim, and only five are recorded as being from a Bangladeshi background. The heritage of 366 of the Asian group is not stated in those figures.

Mass grooming is a small part of the child sex abuse cases facing Britain. Most working in protecting children from sexual abuse say a skewed message is being given about the danger to children from the media coverage of "Asian grooming gangs".

They've said the biggest dangers are not just on the street, but online, and the total abuse shows far more white people are perpetrators.

 

You've chosen to remain the bogus, deflecting, bullshitting, dimwit that you've always been.

Challenge means tackle the content btw you ****tard

 

Given I gave a clear reply that addressed the point directly when I said I thought it looked like gibberish, it looks like you're just being a tediously disruptive tosser as usual.

You're boring. If you're going to loiter and chip in, why not engage in the conversation instead of just being an arsehole?

 

Point out exactly where you addressed the paragraph you referred to?

Here we go....

You boring auld ****

 

**** me, what a boring ****er you are. Okay, read this if I'm patronisingly patting you on the head.

I'll post the one, as you'll no doubt go rambling on and on anyway. They're easy to find, as you quoted them you tedious ****er.

Apologies to the others that were having a decent discussion until yet again, tedious tobes pointlessly ****ed it up.

 

Humans are tribal, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.

 

I'm sure you spend lots of time with people outside of your social class...

 

I'm sure you spend even more time in that little dream world of your own.,..

 

What I've said is what I've said, how you think you can brush it under the carpet on what you perceive to be misinformation is reprehensible. This idea that we must ignore what is being done by vast gangs of Muslim men because 'hurr durr white people do it too!' is ridiculous and you need to take a long hard look at yourself for being an apologist for these criminals. Those that have been jailed for being members of grooming gangs targeting young white girls are 90% Muslim.

What did the NSPCC say about that report? Even more so, why are you copying and pasting paragraphs from the Guardian and trying to pass it off as your own? Why use something focused on race when I'm talking about a 'religion'? In your opinion, why is the ethnicity of 21% of perpetrators omitted, and why aren't the backgrounds of the 366 'Asians' included? Even if this report is to be taken as seriously as you want it to be, it still concedes that over a quarter of cases involve 'Asians', this is still a massive over representation.