Muslims Muslims Muslims

[ToadBrother]

This points out a very real defect in allowing total self-determination among nations. Savagery is savagery and yet we routinely abide it in the name of respecting the "internal affairs" of nations that do not respect the rights of their people, particularly women and gays. Leftists should be particularly insistent in protecting these rights.

What do you propose, that we declare war on Saudi Arabia because some moron didn't bother to check on the laws of the country she decided to emigrate to?

At some point there has to be some level of responsibility on the part of an individual. It's not like Saudi law is a big secret.

[politicslvr]

At some point there has to be some level of responsibility on the part of an individual. It's not like Saudi law is a big secret.

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't interfere with the inhumane practices of other nations? Nathalie went back to Saudi Arabia without knowing that her husband would turn into an abuser, and sure as hell didn't anticipate her own husband would deny her from leaving the country. I don't see how you can say the responsibility is on her.

[Argus]

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't interfere with the inhumane practices of other nations? Nathalie went back to Saudi Arabia without knowing that her husband would turn into an abuser, and sure as hell didn't anticipate her own husband would deny her from leaving the country. I don't see how you can say the responsibility is on her.

Any woman who goes to a Muslim nation must be aware that she is basically surrendering all her rights and becoming the chattel or slave of her husband. If you don't know that then you shouldn't be going there.

[jbg]

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't interfere with the inhumane practices of other nations? Nathalie went back to Saudi Arabia without knowing that her husband would turn into an abuser, and sure as hell didn't anticipate her own husband would deny her from leaving the country. I don't see how you can say the responsibility is on her.

So I guess you're suggesting "regime change" throughout the Muslim world? I guess you supported Bush? To quote myself (link):

This points out a very real defect in allowing total self-determination among nations. Savagery is savagery and yet we routinely abide it in the name of respecting the "internal affairs" of nations that do not respect the rights of their people, particularly women and gays. Leftists should be particularly insistent in protecting these rights.

Edited October 31, 2009 by jbg

[dlkenny]

No, I don't think there are any more "bad" muslim people than anyone else. Every society has it's bad apples and its unfortunate that the media (particularily american media) has created a fear that every muslim or "brown person" is a potential terrorist. I suppose there is some justification to this simply because most terrorists in the past 10 years have been from a muslim background but that's about as logical as saying all americans are like the Mormons of Utah. It makes no sense.

It is true though that muslim people generally have more conservative ideologies and I suppose that makes some people uncomfortable. I had a roommate at the University of Calgary who was muslim and I got along great with the guy, we even opened a company called "Condoms Unlimited" and his involvement in that project shattered my image of muslim people.

You're right though, it isn't fair and I wish more people could see it that way.

[Hobble]

Ignorance towards each others cultures and religions are the main reason towards the prejudice and aggressiveness towards the Muslims from the West, and the Muslims towards the West.

I am all for faith, but unfortunately, I believe organized religion is a huge reason for many conflicts throughout the world and history... If only the majority could accept the differences of others, the world would be a better place...

[jbg]

No, I don't think there are any more "bad" muslim people than anyone else. Every society has it's bad apples and its unfortunate that the media (particularily american media) has created a fear that every muslim or "brown person" is a potential terrorist. I suppose there is some justification to this simply because most terrorists in the past 10 years have been from a muslim background but that's about as logical as saying all americans are like the Mormons of Utah. It makes no sense.

Ignorance towards each others cultures and religions are the main reason towards the prejudice and aggressiveness towards the Muslims from the West, and the Muslims towards the West.

I am all for faith, but unfortunately, I believe organized religion is a huge reason for many conflicts throughout the world and history... If only the majority could accept the differences of others, the world would be a better place...

I suppose the problem is that each group's "bad eggs" tend to hurt society in different ways. New Jersey Police Superintendent Carl Williams learned the hard way about being too up front about this, where he openly said that you look for different types of crimes with different groups. Muslims are not drug traffickers, typically. Jamaican gangs typically do not blow up buildings for little or no reason. That's just a fact.

[Argus]

I suppose the problem is that each group's "bad eggs" tend to hurt society in different ways. New Jersey Police Superintendent Carl Williams learned the hard way about being too up front about this, where he openly said that you look for different types of crimes with different groups. Muslims are not drug traffickers, typically. Jamaican gangs typically do not blow up buildings for little or no reason. That's just a fact.

Actually, Iranian refugees are credited with reviving the heroin trade in Canada. They, Afghanis, and Lebanese are big-time drug dealers here. Somalis are moving into it, too.

[jbg]

Actually, Iranian refugees are credited with reviving the heroin trade in Canada. They, Afghanis, and Lebanese are big-time drug dealers here. Somalis are moving into it, too.

That I didn't know. It's not the pattern Stateside.

[Michael Hardner]

If taking cut/pastes from the news were a valid way to prove the criminality of a sub-group (which it isn't) then I could present the latest story of Ontario's large mass-murder:

Mr. Aravena and his five co-accused, Wayne Kellestine, 60, Dwight Mushey, 41, Michael Sandham, 39, Frank Mather, 35 and Brett Gardiner, 25, were each charged with eight counts of first-degree murder.

Their eight victims were fellow Bandidos John Muscedere, George Jessome, George Kriarkis, Luis Raposo, Frank Salerno, Paul Sinopoli, Jamie Flanz and Michael Trotta, all from the Greater Toronto area. The jury's verdicts came 3½ years after the killings, and seven months after the trial began in a heavily secured 14th-floor courtroom in downtown London.

Globe

Not too many Somali, Iranian or Lebanese (?) names there.

[Wild Bill]

If taking cut/pastes from the news were a valid way to prove the criminality of a sub-group (which it isn't) then I could present the latest story of Ontario's large mass-murder:

Globe

Not too many Somali, Iranian or Lebanese (?) names there.

Not at all logical, Michael. You can't plot a curve from only one data point.

Whenever someone cites an obvious numerical statistic, such as certain ethnic groups tend to predominate in certain types of crime, someone will scour the news and come up with ONE OR TWO exceptions! Then they will present that exception as if it is of equal statistical merit.

It's just not true! If you have 99 examples of one premise and only 1 that contradicts it then that 1 does NOT invalidate the premise!

No one said that those ethnic groups were the ONLY source of crime!

Once again Michael, passion over logic. Statistically, you haven't proven a darn thing.

[Michael Hardner]

WB

Not at all logical, Michael. You can't plot a curve from only one data point.

Wow. You actually called anecdotal evidence a 'data point'. As I already indicated these stories prove nothing.

But, this story involves the crime syndicates involved in selling and distributing drugs in society so what do you think ?

Once again Michael, passion over logic. Statistically, you haven't proven a darn thing.

And I already said as much.

Whenever someone cites an obvious numerical statistic, such as certain ethnic groups tend to predominate in certain types of crime, someone will scour the news and come up with ONE OR TWO exceptions! Then they will present that exception as if it is of equal statistical merit.

You're stating over and over again that news stories are a valid way to support a point, they aren't.

It's just not true! If you have 99 examples of one premise and only 1 that contradicts it then that 1 does NOT invalidate the premise!

No one said that those ethnic groups were the ONLY source of crime!

Once again Michael, passion over logic. Statistically, you haven't proven a darn thing.

Having 99 examples of anything proves nothing. There could be 100000 examples out there that aren't in the paper.

I think you misunderstood my point. I was trying to show you that the news can't be used as a statistical basis for anything. Rather than understand that, you've come back with some new invented rules for journalism-based statistical proofs. It doesn't work.

Go find a real study - an academic study of such things - and let's use that as a starting point for a real discussion. What do you say ? I can even help you find one.

[Wild Bill]

Go find a real study - an academic study of such things - and let's use that as a starting point for a real discussion. What do you say ? I can even help you find one.

Don't bother, MH. I've developed a skepticism about academics over the years. They tend not to be "real world". Quite logical in their arguments but simply not correct.

There is a difference between sounding logical and articulate and actually being right. Logic is simply a mental exercise. You can logically prove any premise if you exclude or are unaware of any contradictory evidence.

Like the old joke about a statistician, who believes that if you have one foot in the fire and one on the ice you should be quite comfortable!

Here's another:

No cat has 8 tails. Yet every cat has one tail more than no cat. Therefore all cats have 9 tails.

Despite all politically correct but very logical argument, the number of crimes of political violence committed by radical Islamists far exceeds the numbers of any other group. What's more, although it is considered wrong to racially profile people it is only common sense that if you are afraid of a suicide bomber crashing your party it would be silly to start the screening of your guests with any that are Jehovah Witnesses or Christedelphians.

[Michael Hardner]

WB

Don't bother, MH. I've developed a skepticism about academics over the years. They tend not to be "real world". Quite logical in their arguments but simply not correct.

This is a problem.

You believe newspaper stories, but not rigorous academic studies using published scientific methodologies.

There is a difference between sounding logical and articulate and actually being right. Logic is simply a mental exercise. You can logically prove any premise if you exclude or are unaware of any contradictory evidence.

A study doesn't start out as "being right". It starts out with a hypothesis, and a proposed methodology and it goes through the process.

Like the old joke about a statistician, who believes that if you have one foot in the fire and one on the ice you should be quite comfortable!

Here's another:

No cat has 8 tails. Yet every cat has one tail more than no cat. Therefore all cats have 9 tails.

Cute. Proves nothing. Look around you at the human world - it was built thanks to scientists and academics building upon previous knowledge and using the scientific method.

Despite all politically correct but very logical argument, the number of crimes of political violence committed by radical Islamists far exceeds the numbers of any other group. What's more, although it is considered wrong to racially profile people it is only common sense that if you are afraid of a suicide bomber crashing your party it would be silly to start the screening of your guests with any that are Jehovah Witnesses or Christedelphians.

You're basically coming out and saying you only believe things that confirm your ideas. You have proven in this post that you're closed-minded. Thankfully, the human world wasn't built by people with your mindset, but by people who adjust their theories based upon objective observations.

[Argus]

I think you misunderstood my point. I was trying to show you that the news can't be used as a statistical basis for anything. Rather than understand that, you've come back with some new invented rules for journalism-based statistical proofs. It doesn't work.

Let me try this on for size. Over the last thirty five odd years that I've been oberving the news - and I am a news junkie - I would say that in cases of pimping, esp where girls were forced into prostitution, about 98% of those suspects whose race I was able to identify were Black. Now is this actual scientific evidence? Hell, no. But it certainly leads one to believe that, statistically, pimping is largely a Black occupation in this country.

Go find a real study - an academic study of such things - and let's use that as a starting point for a real discussion. What do you say ? I can even help you find one.

You're aware by now that no such studies can exist in Canada as the basis for evidence - the race of those arrested and convicted of various crimes - is deliberately not made available for statistical studies.

[Wild Bill]

You're basically coming out and saying you only believe things that confirm your ideas. You have proven in this post that you're closed-minded. Thankfully, the human world wasn't built by people with your mindset, but by people who adjust their theories based upon objective observations.

No, I'm saying that I don't take for granted that every "academic" source followed the scientific method in their report! I don't believe that they are as objective as perhaps they used to be up until a few decades ago.

I'm quite willing to change my ideas, but not from reports that conflict with some obvious observation in the real world.

I find newspapers suspect, due to editorial bias. I swear the Toronto Star would have buried reports about Charles Manson at the bottom of page 30 or whatever if he had have been a prominent Liberal. Still, if there are vast numbers of newspaper stories telling me about suicide bombers that are mostly named Mohammed or Achmed and you or someone else were to present me with an academic study telling me that I would be wrong to profile those coming from Muslim countries I think it only logical to take the news stories as being of more value.

Especially if the report dealt with a politically correct issue and the report came from Queens U or Ryerson. My direct experience has been that those schools lost their objectivity years ago, if they ever had any!

Edited November 2, 2009 by Wild Bill

[Michael Hardner]

Argus,

Hell, no. But it certainly leads one to believe that, statistically, pimping is largely a Black occupation in this country.

You're aware by now that no such studies can exist in Canada as the basis for evidence - the race of those arrested and convicted of various crimes - is deliberately not made available for statistical studies.

1. Yes, it leads one to believe that. It may even be true but it doesn't really tell us why.

2. Yes, I'm aware but there are other countries and other resources.

[Michael Hardner]

WB

No, I'm saying that I don't take for granted that every "academic" source followed the scientific method in their report! I don't believe that they are as objective as perhaps they used to be up until a few decades ago.

I'm quite willing to change my ideas, but not from reports that conflict with some obvious observation in the real world.

You seemed pretty dismissive before, and now you're saying that your problem is that they didn't follow a scientific method. Well, the studies need to state what their methodology was. If they don't state that, then you should be suspicious.

And real world observation is exactly what these studies should be doing, as opposed to newspaper reports for example.

I find newspapers suspect, due to editorial bias. I swear the Toronto Star would have buried reports about Charles Manson at the bottom of page 30 or whatever if he had have been a prominent Liberal. Still, if there are vast numbers of newspaper stories telling me about suicide bombers that are mostly named Mohammed or Achmed and you or someone else were to present me with an academic study telling me that I would be wrong to profile those coming from Muslim countries I think it only logical to take the news stories as being of more value.

But that doesn't address the issue of culture vs religion.

Especially if the report dealt with a politically correct issue and the report came from Queens U or Ryerson. My direct experience has been that those schools lost their objectivity years ago, if they ever had any!

What direct experience do you refer to ? Why those schools in particular ?

[Wild Bill]

What direct experience do you refer to ? Why those schools in particular ?

I've seen economic textbooks from Queens that are classic leftwing economics, from before the USSR broke up. I've have friends who attended those schools who told me what they experienced. I trust their objectivity. Queens has been in the news for some years now with stories about banning Israeli speakers, or hooting them off the stage with Palistinian propaganda. Last year Queens was seriously implementing politically correct "proctors" whose job it was to hang around cafeterias, meeting halls or wherever and eavesdrop on conversations. If they heard anything politically incorrect they were to interrupt and point out the infraction to the offender!

These schools are obviously NOT bastions of free speech!

Here's a link:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...university.aspx

[Gabriel]

politicslvr - How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when your bone of contention is the federal government's lack of action to benefit a Canadian who chose to marry a man Saudi Arabia (as if there is some shortage of men in Canada), have children with him, move there, and then complain when she is mistreated? She is 100% responsible for her own circumstances. Canada can leverage its diplomacy, but if Saudi Arabia refuses to return her to Canada, then there's simply nothing else Canada can or should do. I could be much more crude, but there is something deeply wrong with this woman considering the choices she's made. I can guarantee you that a woman who leaves Canada to marry a man in Saudi Arabia (of all countries!) is deeply disturbed and more than likely uneducated. Her current situation is entirely her own fault.