Islam - What's your view on it?

[Imari]

To clarify: I'm not technically guilty of the sins of my country.

Oh? You accused Scaff of being guilty of crimes committed by his country, but now when it about you it happens that you're "not technically guilty". How interesting.

But I do feel somewhat guilty about our invasions of foreign countries under false pretenses. I feel less guilty because I have protested them.

You may feel guilt. I think other people who object to actions undertaken by their governments against their will might not feel guilt, but rather anger, or sympathy for the vicitims, or other emotions. Assuming that everyone else should feel guilty like you when really they have nothing to feel guilty about seems rather rude.

You also made the error of implying actual guilt and association with those actions, rather that simply a feeling in response to them. That seems to be what you're saying now, but perhaps you'd like to clarify. You're not being terribly consistent.

I think protest is a traditional prerogative of Americans. If you do not feel you have that right and privilege and responsibility, then okay. That's you and your country, and it's not my concern.

I'm not an American, so I don't hold any prerogatives of Americans. I'm Australian, and I have the right and privilege to oppose my government if I choose. It's not a responsibility that I do so, it's a choice that I may make.

In my opinion, protest by marching in the streets with a sign is neither the only way nor the best way for me to attempt to reform my government. And as someone with fairly severe social anxiety, it would be a good way to accomplish having a panic attack rather than actually achieving any political goal. I choose to make my statements in ways that are more appropriate for my situation.

That you deem public protest the sole measure of a person's dedication to the direction of their country I find somewhat insulting. It belittles those that work hard to reform their country in any other way.

In a democracy you are entitled to partake in political life but I do not believe you are obligated to do so.

Interestingly, we are in Australia. It is compulsory for eligible citizens to enrol and vote. They're not super strict about it, but I know more than a few people who have been fined for not voting.

However, I personally felt obliged to march for civil rights in the 60's, and against unjust wars.

But you don't feel so now. What changed that you're no longer obligated? Are the wars now all just?

 

[HenrySwanson]

One thing you have to admire is it's ability to subsume host countries. According to Pew by 2050 almost 1/3 of Sweden will be Muslims:

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12093/europe-civilizational-exhaustion

 

[Scaff]

One thing you have to admire is it's ability to subsume host countries. According to Pew by 2050 almost 1/3 of Sweden will be Muslims:

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12093/europe-civilizational-exhaustion

Except that's not what Pew said, which is no surprise given that you have used both inflammatory language and cited the utterly biased gatestone institute.

What Gatestone said:
"By 2050, almost one in three people in Sweden will be Muslim, according to a recent Pew report"
"In Sweden, by 2050, almost one in three people will be Muslim."

What Pew actually said was:
"Sweden, which also has accepted a relatively high number of refugees, would experience even greater effects if the migration levels from 2014 to mid-2016 were to continue indefinitely: Sweden’s population (8% Muslim in 2016) could grow to 31% Muslim in the high scenario by 2050, compared with 21% in the medium scenario and 11% with no further Muslim migration."

It would need to assume that the high levels of migration from 2014-2016 continued without any change what so ever until 2050, which Pew acknowledge as the 'high scenario', odd that Gatestone didn't mention that, or provide details of the Low or Medium scenario? Oh wait, no its not odd given its Gatestone.

 

[Biggles]

I guess the key question is: how "Muslim" will the second & third generation born to Islamic immigrants be?

 

[Rallywagon]

My experience, most will be just enough to appease their parents. So by the third or forth generations Id guess they would be fairly assimilated.
An Iranian friend of mine is, well, maybe first generation, but he came here at a very impressionable age. Its quite clear he follows the teaching of the late Biggy Smalls more than and religious rhetoric his parents wanted to enforce. That said, he did eventually get into an arranged marriage and puts on an "orthodox" show when his parents are in the states.
Edit: before someone says something about only my experience, ill epilogue with this was my experience, almost entirely across the board with younger middle easterners that have come here, and second generation Arab Americans. This I do not claim to be a rule or exception, just my experience with the countless immigrants I have met, middle eastern or otherwise, over the years.

 

[Biggles]

The situation of muslims coming to the US & Canada, & I suppose Australia may be a little from countries like Sweden, as they are "countries of immigrants" to start with. Every wave of new immigrants has been seen as some kind of a threat by some the existing population. You only have to look at the evidence of extreme anti-immigrant propaganda that has appeared over the decades: anti-Irish, anti-German, anti-Scandinavian, anti-Polish, anti-Jewish, anti-Italian ... etc. As I pointed out in another thread, the New England Puritans actually hanged four Quakers in the seventeenth century, for being "different".

I'm not sure that the average muslim immigrant will turn out to be that different from the preceding immigrants. I think the differences tend to be more cultural than religious & eventually those cultural differences are diluted as they mix with the existing culture in the new homeland.

 

[Rallywagon]

The situation of muslims coming to the US & Canada, & I suppose Australia may be a little from countries like Sweden, as they are "countries of immigrants" to start with. Every wave of new immigrants has been seen as some kind of a threat by some the existing population. You only have to look at the evidence of extreme anti-immigrant propaganda that has appeared over the decades: anti-Irish, anti-German, anti-Scandinavian, anti-Polish, anti-Jewish, anti-Italian ... etc. As I pointed out in another thread, the New England Puritans actually hanged four Quakers in the seventeenth century, for being "different".

I'm not sure that the average muslim immigrant will turn out to be that different from the preceding immigrants. I think the differences tend to be more cultural than religious & eventually those cultural differences are diluted as they mix with the existing culture in the new homeland.

Age i think plays a huge role. Not to que off on the "old dog new trick" saying. But as we get older, we definitely are less impressionable. And that certainly changes how well you will assimilate to the countries life styles you immigrate too.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Except that's not what Pew said, which is no surprise given that you have used both inflammatory language and cited the utterly biased gatestone institute.

What Gatestone said:
"By 2050, almost one in three people in Sweden will be Muslim, according to a recent Pew report"
"In Sweden, by 2050, almost one in three people will be Muslim."

What Pew actually said was:
"Sweden, which also has accepted a relatively high number of refugees, would experience even greater effects if the migration levels from 2014 to mid-2016 were to continue indefinitely: Sweden’s population (8% Muslim in 2016) could grow to 31% Muslim in the high scenario by 2050, compared with 21% in the medium scenario and 11% with no further Muslim migration."

It would need to assume that the high levels of migration from 2014-2016 continued without any change what so ever until 2050, which Pew acknowledge as the 'high scenario', odd that Gatestone didn't mention that, or provide details of the Low or Medium scenario? Oh wait, no its not odd given its Gatestone.

Ahh between 1/5 and a 1/4, rather than a 1/3 gotcha.

I used "subsume" since that is its history (eg Egypt), much like Christianity subsumed much of Europe centuries ago.

As for biased websites, we'd be shrunk to a very small list of acceptable ones as even respectable sites such as the Guardian aren't averse to a few porkies!

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/04/the-guardian-letter-defending-jeremy-corbyn-is-a-sham/

 

[Scaff]

Ahh between 1/5 and a 1/4, rather than a 1/3 gotcha.

Gotcha is the response to using a source that posted what was a lie?

"Will be" and "if", "were" & "could" are very, very different things. The first (used by Gatestone) is an absolute, the rest (used by Pew) are most certainly not.

You posted a claim from Gatestone, as if it were said by Pew, it wasn't. Not only that but it was both out of context and not an accurate representation of the actual source.

Not that it should be a surprise for anyone with regard to Gatestone's track record of utter ********. Your source miss-used the Pew data and that resulted in you posting an inaccurate claim, that alone should honestly be making you question why they did so in such a blatant manner?

It also works on the assumption that birth rates will continue to grow at the same rate, which Pew themselves have acknowledged is very unlikley.

"The growth of the global Muslim population, however, should not obscure another important demographic trend: the rate of growth among Muslims has been slowing in recent decades and is likely to continue to decline over the next 20 years, as the graph below shows. From 1990 to 2000, the Muslim population grew at an average annual rate of 2.3%. The growth rate dipped to 2.1% from 2000 to 2010, and it is projected to drop to 1.7% from 2010 to 2020 and 1.4% from 2020 to 2030 (or 1.5% annually over the 20-year period from 2010 to 2030, as previously noted)."
http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/the-future-of-the-global-muslim-population/

Its amazing what happens when you use the actual sources and put them in full context, rather than focus on cherry picked data from an anti-muslim source.

I used "subsume" since that is its history (eg Egypt), much like Christianity subsumed much of Europe centuries ago.

Sorry which european country has Islam managed to subsume (as that was the context of the cited source)?

 

[HenrySwanson]

Gotcha is the response to using a source that posted what was a lie?

No, "gotcha" as in I understand that you were right (not 1/3, but likely between 1/4 and a 1/5)

Sorry which european country has Islam managed to subsume (as that was the context of the cited source)?

None that I know of - I used Egypt as an example. Syria could be another for instance.

 

[Scaff]

No, "gotcha" as in I understand that you were right (not 1/3, but likely between 1/4 and a 1/5)

Assuming that they are right, even Pew doesn't make a claim that certain.

I do have to ask two questions however. Why do you think that Gatestone so blatantly misused the Pew data? Why would it be a problem even if the data is correct?

None that I know of - I used Egypt as an example. Syria could be another for instance.

Yet the context is Europe?

In the case of both Syria and Egypt we are talking the very distant past (7th Century for Syria and 10th for Egypt), what relevance does that actually have?

 

[HenrySwanson]

Why do you think that Gatestone so blatantly misused the Pew data?

Same reason the Guardian misrepresented their data in the article I linked to. Bias!

Why would it be a problem even if the data is correct?

Such large demographic shifts always raise concerns. We ask the questions before problems arise, and look to the past sometimes for answers e.g. what happened to the non-Muslim citizens in those countries after such a demographic shift.

As Dawkin's says (found in the article) in response to https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-religion?mc_cid=78e2abfee3&mc_eid=b5f1c39cdf:

Before we rejoice at the death throes of the relatively benign Christian religion, let's not forget Hilaire Belloc's menacing rhyme:
"Always keep a-hold of nurse
For fear of finding something worse."

Yet the context is Europe?

In the case of both Syria and Egypt we are talking the very distant past (7th Century for Syria and 10th for Egypt), what relevance does that actually have?

Yes, as in using information from the past and forming an opinion on what could happen. History always has relevance! Just look at what Erdogan invisages as the future for Europe, and how much he invokes the past.

 

[Scaff]

Same reason the Guardian misrepresented their data in the article I linked to. Bias!

The why did you not mention the bias when you used it as a source?

You have also ignored my question as to why they did so?

Bias it what they displayed and how it could be characterised, but why did they do it, what was the end goal of such a deliberate act of cherry picking?

Such large demographic shifts always raise concerns. We ask the questions before problems arise, and look to the past sometimes for answers e.g. what happened to the non-Muslim citizens in those countries after such a demographic shift.

As Dawkin's says (found in the article) in response to https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-religion?mc_cid=78e2abfee3&mc_eid=b5f1c39cdf:

Before we rejoice at the death throes of the relatively benign Christian religion, let's not forget Hilaire Belloc's menacing rhyme:
"Always keep a-hold of nurse
For fear of finding something worse."

Which countries?

Are you seriously suggesting that the activities of a thousand years ago are representative of current day immigration?

Good example however of one of Dawkins stupider moments, a soundbite that was latched onto by far right Christians to further religious discord and intolerance.

Just as elements of Islam are far from benign, so are elements of Christianity. How quickly the European genocide of the '90s is forgotten, or the sectarian violence of the 70's and 80s!

Yes, as in using information from the past and forming an opinion on what could happen. History always has relevance! Just look at what Erdogan invisages as the future for Europe, and how much he invokes the past.

Again I ask, are you seriously suggesting that the activities of a thousand years ago are representative of current day immigration?

Erdogan is also a populist dictator who uses religion as a stick to wield control (when it suits him and ignores it when it doesn't), as such I really don't see the relevance at all.

 

[HenrySwanson]

The why did you not mention the bias when you used it as a source?

Didn't see the Pew research article when I quoted it. I thank you for highlighting it

Which countries?

Are you seriously suggesting that the activities of a thousand years ago are representative of current day immigration?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no (you'll note I said we look to the past sometimes)

For instance the many reported abuses of non-Muslim migrants when in camps or the treatment of Muslims who converted to Christianity. Or the exodus of many Jews from France and Christians from Iraq (I'd cite gatestone articles but I'm scared to now..) Thousands of years it may be, but people are still people!

Again I ask, are you seriously suggesting that the activities of a thousand years ago are representative of current day immigration?

Erdogan is also a populist dictator who uses religion as a stick to wield control (when it suits him and ignores it when it doesn't), as such I really don't see the relevance at all.

Much like Orban! But I have to disagree that there is no relevance to what they both think.

 

[Scaff]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no (you'll note I said we look to the past sometimes)

A thousand years ago, even sometimes is a massive leap to say the least.

Oh and I once again ask

"Then why did you not mention the bias when you used it as a source?

You have also ignored my question as to why they did so?

Bias it what they displayed and how it could be characterised, but why did they do it, what was the end goal of such a deliberate act of cherry picking?"

For instance the many reported abuses of non-Muslim migrants when in camps or the treatment of Muslims who converted to Christianity. Thousands of years it may be, but people are still people!

And the many reported cases of abuses of Muslim migrants when they reach the west?

Or are you simply attempting to use the actions of the few to target the many? If so why can the reverse not be done.

Much like Orban! But I have to disagree that there is no relevance to what they both think.

Then you will have no problem outlining the factual basis for what they think.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I mean demographic shifts can work out against Muslims. I think the most prominent example is of the Rohingya.

The point is, which I probably haven't made too clear is that such large transitions are fraught with danger and can have far reaching implications on the stability or makeup of a group/city/nation etc

 

[Scaff]

I mean demographic shifts can work out against Muslims. I think the most prominent example is of the Rohingya.

The point is, which I probably haven't made too clear is that such large transitions are fraught with danger and can have far reaching implications on the stability or makeup of a group/city/nation etc

You've not made it clear at all, in fact up until this point you have been quite specific in targeting one group only, which combined with your choice of words and a source that quite clearly has a biased anti-Muslim agenda only re-enforced the manner in which you presented yourself.

I am however still interested to know your views on the question I have now asked repeatedly (and have had ignored) in regard to the Gatestone piece: "Bias it what they displayed and how it could be characterised, but why did they do it, what was the end goal of such a deliberate act of cherry picking?"

 

[SestoScudo]

I'll give my opinion on this. I was born in Australia to Turkish parents. Yes i'm a Muslim. Am I practising it depends I do pray and not drink alcohol at times try to immerse myself in Islamic knowledge but am I devout not really at times I miss prayers I do listen to music.

Muslim immigrants that come to the West are not monolithic many have their own cultures, customs and languages. You will have ones devout, others practising, others by name or the other who has left Islam and basically calls him or herself a cultural Muslim as they believe the religion gives them a identity or culture.

You have many Muslim immigrants who barely practice the religion.

So this takeover of Europe or the west is so stupid. Did you know the old Islamic Empires or the age of conquest is dead how many Muslim countries that aspire to be an Empire again. Erdogan only uses the Ottomans to garner up support for his votes.

By the way it took Indonesia 500 years to be Islamic. The process of Indonesia becoming a Muslim country is still long way to go as you still have many animists, buddhists and other religions in Indonesia there are regions where Islam barely touched. In Afghanistan a region called Nuristan only became Muslim in the 1800's.

A lot of far right have this fear of an Islamic conquest because of the past as the Ottoman Empire reached Vienna and the Ummayads that took over Spain and reached modern day France. Thats only two empires. In Islamic history the various Islamic empires and kingdoms spent most of their time fighting each other to even care about a conquest of Europe or christianity. The conquest was not just Europe but parts of Africa and Asia. History is not black and white as it seems this whole Euarabia is a myth.

 

[HenrySwanson]

You've not made it clear at all, in fact up until this point you have been quite specific in targeting one group only, which combined with your choice of words and a source that quite clearly has a biased anti-Muslim agenda only re-enforced the manner in which you presented yourself.

I am however still interested to know your views on the question I have now asked repeatedly (and have had ignored) in regard to the Gatestone piece: "Bias it what they displayed and how it could be characterised, but why did they do it, what was the end goal of such a deliberate act of cherry picking?"

I think they are a pro-Western site and present themselves as such. They see Islam as a conquering threat particularly to European civilisation and use data to augment this argument - sometimes cherry picking.

I think what we're seeing at this stage of history is the suppression of ideas. Taking this quote as an example, that was removed from Facebook:

"In this sense, Islam is not part of German history, but the defense against Islam!"

we enter dangerous territory where nuance is lost and you either stick with the prevailing thought or shut up. The words were spoken by a historian and his defence of them is here:
https://pjmedia.com/faith/facebook-...r-saying-islam-is-not-part-of-german-history/

A lot of far right have this fear of an Islamic conquest because of the past as the Ottoman Empire reached Vienna and the Ummayads that took over Spain and reached modern day France. Thats only two empires. In Islamic history the various Islamic empires and kingdoms spent most of their time fighting each other to even care about a conquest of Europe or christianity. The conquest was not just Europe but parts of Africa and Asia. History is not black and white as it seems this whole Euarabia is a myth.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a Far Right only phenomena. I'd say a lot of the centre right hold this view too (as a crude example 76% of Germans agree with Seehofer's remarks that "Islam doesn't belong to Germany, but that Muslims can be Germans")
https://tech2.org/germany/islam-statement-76-percent-of-germans-agree-with-horst-seehofer/

 

[Mr Tree]

I think they are a pro-Western site and present themselves as such. They see Islam as a conquering threat particularly to European civilisation and use data to augment this argument - sometimes cherry picking.

I think what we're seeing at this stage of history is the suppression of ideas. Taking this quote as an example, that was removed from Facebook:

"In this sense, Islam is not part of German history, but the defense against Islam!"

we enter dangerous territory where nuance is lost and you either stick with the prevailing thought or shut up. The words were spoken by a historian and his defence of them is here:
https://pjmedia.com/faith/facebook-...r-saying-islam-is-not-part-of-german-history/


I wouldn't necessarily call it a Far Right only phenomena. I'd say a lot of the centre right hold this view too (as a crude example 76% of Germans agree with Seehofer's remarks that "Islam doesn't belong to Germany, but that Muslims can be Germans")
https://tech2.org/germany/islam-statement-76-percent-of-germans-agree-with-horst-seehofer/

How was his speach stopped? Freedom of speech is a goverment policy, facebook can show or pull 'whatever' they want as long as no government is involved don't they?

Is the professor being charged with a crime?
He also didn'hace to shut up, he just needs to find an other way to get his speech to reach more people.

Edit: they see islam as a conquering treath and justify this through cherrypicking data sorry everyone is guilty of this sometimes but seeing it written down just maked the entire situation a comedy.

 

[HenrySwanson]

How was his speach stopped? Freedom of speech is a goverment policy, facebook can show or pull 'whatever' they want as long as no government is involved don't they?

They can, as can Twitter or any other private enterprise. His speech was stopped however by the largest social media platform in the world. That has worrying implications/consequences.

Is the professor being charged with a crime?
He also didn'hace to shut up, he just needs to find an other way to get his speech to reach more people.

This year saw a man charged with making a video of a dog making Nazi salutes. Are we to believe this is going to be an isolated example.

 

[Mr Tree]

They can, as can Twitter or any other private enterprise. His speech was stopped however by the largest social media platform in the world. That has worrying implications/consequences.

Which consequences? The worrying thing would be if the government would enforce what is acceptable on the platform (something that happens in europe).

This year saw a man charged with making a video of a dog making Nazi salutes. Are we to believe this is going to be an isolated example.

See here is where it is worrying and you can check the britain thread and see I opposed said ruling. This is where the government get's invovled. I don't think this is a isolated case as the justice system now has this precedent to justify similar rulings.

The funny thing is this is also happening for the muslims with just as vague terms as hatespeech. Yet when this is prosecuted in europe everyone agrees justice has been served I find that to be a double standard and one I can't get behind.

These slippery slope speech laws shouldn't exist not for anyone.

 

[SestoScudo]

Hate speech?? If Muslims do hate speech they are also punished according to the laws of whatever country it is.

By the way if a Muslim says some hateful things to jews or which ever religious or ethnic group on facebook he or she also has its posts removed.

This applies to anybody who uses facebook to spread hate.

Ironic how some Germans ignore their relations with the Islamic World. That in world war 1 the Kaiser himself encouraged a world wide Jihad against the British, French and the Russians. Just love it how times changed when Germany saw the Islamic world as a friend to todays tensions.

Politics gives us some pretty strange bed fellows.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Which consequences? The worrying thing would be if the government would enforce what is acceptable on the platform (something that happens in europe).

You answered your own question.

But I'll also add that it dilutes the conversation, as people only get half of the story. How can people be informed and therefore make reasonable conclusions if one side is censored.

For a look at how this affects the next generation see:
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/...ted-my-talk-and-the-pupils-lost-a3710996.html

See here is where it is worrying and you can check the britain thread and see I opposed said ruling. This is where the government get's invovled. I don't think this is a isolated case as the justice system now has this precedent to justify similar rulings.

The funny thing is this is also happening for the muslims with just as vague terms as hatespeech. Yet when this is prosecuted in europe everyone agrees justice has been served I find that to be a double standard and one I can't get behind.

These slippery slope speech laws shouldn't exist not for anyone.

Which is why, believe it or not, I think the Al-Quds march should be allowed to go ahead in London

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Day

 

[Mr Tree]

You answered your own question.

But I'll also add that it dilutes the conversation, as people only get half of the story. How can people be informed and therefore make reasonable conclusions if one side is censored.

For a look at how this affects the next generation see:
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/...ted-my-talk-and-the-pupils-lost-a3710996.html


Which is why, believe it or not, I think the Al-Quds march should be allowed to go ahead in London

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Day

I agree with the march, it should just be allowed how awefull it might be.

On the article, well I don't know this person and trackrecord and as so can't make any descent comments on it. I think in a debate setting people should ve allowed to debate wheter you agree or mike their opinion or not. On the other hand if he's known for deliberatly setting up logical fallacies it might not be the most effecient/constructive path to teach these kids debates. As I presume that's the end goal of said event.
Like I said this is a hypotetical situation as I don't know of the person commits these acts I described.

Edit:
Also I still disagree we silence other people because facebook deletes content they don't want displayed on their platform.

How did facebook deleting content on their own lead to governments forcibg facebook to do so? I don't see the connection.

 

[Scaff]

I think they are a pro-Western site and present themselves as such. They see Islam as a conquering threat particularly to European civilisation and use data to augment this argument - sometimes cherry picking.

So unable to support a claim with facts they lie, got it.

what's more concerning is that you seem quite happy to accept being lied to and are happy to repeat such lies (which doing so knowingly puts you at odds with the sites AUP).

I think what we're seeing at this stage of history is the suppression of ideas. Taking this quote as an example, that was removed from Facebook:

"In this sense, Islam is not part of German history, but the defense against Islam!"

we enter dangerous territory where nuance is lost and you either stick with the prevailing thought or shut up. The words were spoken by a historian and his defence of them is here:
https://pjmedia.com/faith/facebook-...r-saying-islam-is-not-part-of-german-history/

It would seem that cherry picking is not limited to your sources (a source I might add run by a guy that has funded the 'not-nazi just far right' Richard Spencer), but you are happy to engage in it yourself, as you seem to have 'accidentally' removed the following context:

"Islam always plays only one role in the 1700-year-old history of the Christian Occident: the role of the sword of Damocles which hung above us, the threat of barbarism against which one needed to unite and fight,"

A statement that doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny (I take it he's never drunk coffee and its utterly unaware of its existence).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_world_contributions_to_Medieval_Europe

Not to mention that Facebook is a private organisation, with the ability to set whatever policy for inclusion and exclusion of comments they wish.

However what you present as a suppression of ideas is in fact closer to a challenge of the accuracy of the statements used to support the ideas, something that many such as Gatestone have a deep aversion to occurring.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a Far Right only phenomena. I'd say a lot of the centre right hold this view too (as a crude example 76% of Germans agree with Seehofer's remarks that "Islam doesn't belong to Germany, but that Muslims can be Germans")
https://tech2.org/germany/islam-statement-76-percent-of-germans-agree-with-horst-seehofer/

I'm not sure that you would find many people (including Muslims) arguing that Germany should be Muslim, which is effectively what that question asked.

That however is not what the far-right are saying.

 

[HenrySwanson]

So unable to support a claim with facts they lie, got it.

what's more concerning is that you seem quite happy to accept being lied to and are happy to repeat such lies (which doing so knowingly puts you at odds with the sites AUP).

I don't accept that, hence why I thanked you for the clarification on the article. Again, bias isn't limited to right leaning sites/outlets. If you remember when the Telford scandal (perhaps the biggest grooming scandal in history and racially motivated) broke the silence from the BBC, our national broadcaster was deafening:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-bbcs-shameful-silence-on-the-telford-sex-scandal/

Since then there have been articles published on their site, but it was notable by its absence in its national and even regional news.

It would seem that cherry picking is not limited to your sources (a source I might add run by a guy that has funded the 'not-nazi just far right' Richard Spencer)

It was the longest article I could find on the historian's statement of defence.

but you are happy to engage in it yourself, as you seem to have 'accidentally' removed the following context:

"Islam always plays only one role in the 1700-year-old history of the Christian Occident: the role of the sword of Damocles which hung above us, the threat of barbarism against which one needed to unite and fight,"

A statement that doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny (I take it he's never drunk coffee and its utterly unaware of its existence).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_world_contributions_to_Medieval_Europe

Exactly, so you (or I) are free to disagree with him. Well, we could if he wasn't banned....

Not to mention that Facebook is a private organisation, with the ability to set whatever policy for inclusion and exclusion of comments they wish.

However what you present as a suppression of ideas is in fact closer to a challenge of the accuracy of the statements used to support the ideas, something that many such as Gatestone have a deep aversion to occurring.

That's....not what Facebook did.

They deleted the comment and banned him because he did....

“not correspond to our community standards.” As the Facebook notification continues, they will delete any comment that “attacks persons because of their race, ethnicity, national background, religious orientation, sexual orientation, sexual identity, or physical impairment.”

I'm not sure that you would find many people (including Muslims) arguing that Germany should be Muslim, which is effectively what that question asked.

That however is not what the far-right are saying.

I don't understand your point? Mine was that the concern isn't the domain of solely the far-right

Also I still disagree we silence other people because facebook deletes content they don't want displayed on their platform.

How did facebook deleting content on their own lead to governments forcibg facebook to do so? I don't see the connection.

I never said that in the post. What I explained was how the biggest social media platform taking this stance was concerning

 

[Scaff]

I don't accept that, hence why I thanked you for the clarification on the article.

Accept what? That they lied or that you posted it as if it came from Pew when it didn't?

Again, bias isn't limited to right leaning sites/outlets. If you remember when the Telford scandal (perhaps the biggest grooming scandal in history and racially motivated) broke the silence from the BBC, our national broadcaster was deafening:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-bbcs-shameful-silence-on-the-telford-sex-scandal/

Since then there have been articles published on their site, but it was notable by its absence in its national and even regional news.

And?

I'm not sure I've ever held the BBC up as a bastion of un-biased coverage. However the outlet that originally broke the story was actually one often accused of a left leaning bias, as it was Channel 4.

It was the longest article I could find on the historian's statement of defence.

Which doesn't explain why you cherry picked from it.

Why remove part of what he said, a part that has massive context and is also incredibly inaccurate?

Exactly, so you (or I) are free to disagree with him. Well, we could if he wasn't banned....

Well actually you will be able to, as its a temporary ban. I'm not aware that a temporary Facebook ban removes teh ability of people to communicate via other outlets or mediums?

That's....not what Facebook did.

They deleted the comment and banned him because he did....

“not correspond to our community standards.” As the Facebook notification continues, they will delete any comment that “attacks persons because of their race, ethnicity, national background, religious orientation, sexual orientation, sexual identity, or physical impairment.”

As they are perfectly entitled to do so, and once again its a temporary ban, a fact you also feel happy to ignore.

I don't understand your point? Mine was that the concern isn't the domain of solely the far-right

And in doing so conflated a rather reasonable statement with the far-rights rhetoric, which was what was actually being discussed.

So that would actually be two separate examples of you cherry-picking from the same source, its almost as if you wanted to make it look worse than it actually is (and for the record I can give you plenty of example of similar happening to left leaning groups on Facebook, a number of anti-Britain First groups had the same thing happen).

I never said that in the post. What I explained was how the biggest social media platform taking this stance was concerning

Private bodies are free to do what they want, you seem to have no issue with right leaning outlets displaying both bias and presenting outright lies as if they are fact, pretty much dismissing it out of hand.

If Facebook's stance disturbs you, I assume the tack taken by Fox news must have you reaching for pitchforks (who after all almost never allow a dissenting voice to counter an argument and have presented some rather clear ******** as if it were gospel - remember all of Birmingham is a no-go zone, policed by Jihadis).

In comparison a 30 day ban for using bollocks to try and score ideological points seems rather minor (not that a Christian apologist would ever do such a thing, not a chance that this could be an interfaith pissing contest at all).

 

[TenEightyOne]

Thousands of years it may be, but people are still people!

That's interesting. By that measure do we count the contribution and of muslim society to the development of the West as still being important or do we go with your honorary doctor's view that such involvement has only ever meant one thing?

His claims are ludicrous and take little or no account of historical fact.

 

[Mr Tree]

I never said that in the post. What I explained was how the biggest social media platform taking this stance was concerning

You said i the reply before I answered my own question by saying the disturbing thing is that some countries force facebook to do this.

But ok let's move on, if I apperently didn't answer my own question... what is concerning about a private platform deceiding what content they want to display? I don't see the concerning thing here