Europe submits voluntarily

[Bomb#20]

When these migrants (the article calls them "refugees", but most of them aren't - for example, there is no war in Bangladesh or Nigeria!) are "rescued" they should be deposited back where they started from.

Actually there are two wars currently going on in Nigeria, one between the government and Boko Haram, and the other between farmers and herders over land rights.

 

[Bomb#20]

No, you don't -- amply demonstrated -- and nobody else claimed you do, so you can hardly have been repeating what somebody else made up. You just made it up yourself.

Stop talking <expletive deleted>

Name-calling is not a refutation.

I could have read the Snopes article more carefully.

"More carefully"?!? The fact that it completely contradicted you was not a detail buried in the fourth paragraph. It was the whole point of the article.

But that doesn't explain why TSwizzle repeatedly keeps posing Daily Mail articles?

Daily Mail BTW is famous for posting pugilistic <expletive deleted> articles since it's inception. They've never been a reliable source. It's always been absolute crap. What reason to we have to believe that now suddenly they've become a serious news agency?

Why are you asking me that? Did I say they're a serious news agency? Is treating them as a non-serious news agency the thing I have been criticizing you for?

You appear to have a systematic mental block about keeping track of which beliefs are whose. Neither your opinion that the Daily Fail is not a serious news agency, nor my opinion that it is not a serious news agency, has any bearing on the issue at hand, which is you imputing beliefs to TSwizzle that you have no basis for thinking he believes. Neither our opinion nor the DF's fame for pugilism entitle you to take for granted that TSwizzle shares your opinion that they are not a serious news agency. When you reason about other people's reasoning, you need to keep track of which premises are theirs and which premises are yours, or else your conclusions about those people will be more unreliable than the Daily Mail.

As for why he keeps posting Daily Mail articles, that's probably something you should ask him; but I can think of a couple of possible reasons. (1) He may regard them as a serious news agency. (2) He may have lower standards for sources than you think people ought to have.

The thing is, pulling arbitrary numbers out of thin air purely for the sake of explaining the conceptual point, suppose we have a media ecosystem in which some newspapers have a 98% accuracy rate and other newspapers have a 90% accuracy rate. The consequence is that the newspapers with a 90% accuracy rate will quickly earn themselves a well-deserved reputation for writing garbage and not being serious news agencies. You would be perfectly justified in ignoring them and holding out for a report from one of the 98%-accurate sources before believing what you read. But none of that changes the fact that when a story appears in one of those non-serious newspapers, nine time out of ten it's true. If you assume it's probably false you're being stupid. If you assume somebody else knows it's probably false, and you accuse him of it, you're not only being stupid, you're being a grade-A prick.

So perhaps TSwizzle is simply less risk-averse about believing sources than you think he should be. Maybe he's okay with full-speed-ahead posting and just taking the chance that somebody will prove he's wrong. What of it? As we've seen, it turns out you're a lot less risk-averse about believing sources than you think you are. Who did you hear the "In this case they were dancing in 1991 about Kuwait being invaded by Saddam." rumor from? Dollars to donuts you didn't hear that rumor from a serious news agency. You heard it from some source that probably had an even lower accuracy rate than the Daily Mail, and you believed it and posted it as truth. So who the heck are you to say Daily Mail articles aren't reliable enough to be worth posting?

 

[Bomb#20]

And since in this case his lack of understanding appears to result from the Swedish media not having said one way or another whether the perps were immigrants, it can add no information to all the reports we've already seen that didn't say one way or the other.

And assuming they are Muslim or immigrants is argument from ignorance.

So who said they were Muslim or said they were immigrants? Based on local demographics, they were probably Muslim and/or immigrants. Who said more than that?

(I'd add that the hypothesis that the rioters were out-of-neighborhood visitors is highly implausible. Thirty to fifty outside drug dealers are not going to show up to do a drug deal in the first place -- drug dealers try to do drug deals inconspicuously. And when it all goes south outsiders involved in the original crime aren't going to hang around to burn cars and loot shops; they're going to get the heck out before police reinforcements come. It's of course plausible that the riot was instigated by outsiders, but the bulk of the rioters have to have been local.)

It doesn't have to be drug dealers. It could just as well have been two cops smelling the smell of weed in a large group of kids and going into arrest them and then it all goes bananas. The article says drug bust. That's not really saying much other than that they suspected that some in that group had drugs on them. People who buy drugs do travel to the "rougher" neighbourhoods to buy drugs.

Not in groups of thirty to fifty. The same conclusion follows. A few drug buyers could have gone there; they could have started a riot to cover their retreat; but the bulk of the rioters have to have been local.

And that's been my point all along. The Daily Mail article is formulated in such a way that we're supposed to make a bunch of assumptions. Which no doubt is why Tswizzle posted it in this thread. But there's no grounds to make any assumptions.

Quote what it said that tried to make us make a bunch of assumptions.

DrZoidberg is not entitled to kindness. He has a history of unethical conduct on this board, including a strong tendency to groundlessly call his opponents racists.

WTF?!? "unethical conduct" sounds serious. What are you talking about? I'm pretty cautious before calling anybody a racist, and I always explain myself when I do. You might not agree with my reasons. But I always have reasons. What's unethical about that?

There used to be a phrase in America, back in the 40s and 50s: "premature anti-fascist". It's attributed to J. Edgar Hoover, although I think there's no proof he was one of the ones using it. To the modern ear it sounds insane. How could being anti-fascist be premature? But the concept at the time was: yes, sure, we all know that fascism is pure evil, because the fascists made war on everyone and killed the Jews and whatnot; but back in the 30s, how was anybody to know that fascism was all that bad? At the time, Hitler and Mussolini were just these vaguely ridiculous blowhards in unimportant countries, and normal reasonable people figured it was all going to be a flash in the pan and the fascist countries would get over it and democracy would come back by and by. Mostly it was just the communists who were making a big stink about how awful fascism was and trying to get people to go over to Spain and fight them.

So after the war, when we'd beaten the fascists and were focused on beating the communists, some people in the U.S. government decided that a good way to root out communists was to go back in the records and find out who'd been making a stink about fascism in the 30s, years before everybody started doing it. If you were a "premature anti-fascist" it meant you were probably a communist.

The point is, when the communist hunters who thought that way accused somebody of being a communist because he was a premature anti-fascist, they may well have cautiously verified that he really was speaking against fascism in 1933, and they may well have explained themselves, and they always had reasons, although we may disagree with their reasons. Do you seriously think that makes it ethical to call somebody a communist for being able to see how bad Hitler and Mussolini were before most people could? Of course it's unethical! It's not enough to have reasons. To make serious charges you have to have good reasons.

The reasons you have been offering over the years for accusing people of racism have systematically been stupid irrational reasons. "Since mostly dark people are Muslim I think it's fair to say that the target is dark people. That makes it racist." is a typical example of your "reasoning". Your explanations are of a piece with accusing someone of communism for being anti-fascist. You are a modern-day McCarthyist. McCarthyism is unethical.

 

[Warpoet]

More rapefugees:

Really, Derec, fuck you and your agitprop bullshit.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And that's been my point all along. The Daily Mail article is formulated in such a way that we're supposed to make a bunch of assumptions. Which no doubt is why Tswizzle posted it in this thread. But there's no grounds to make any assumptions.

Quote what it said that tried to make us make a bunch of assumptions.

The article does. Apart from cars being set on fire, nothing much happened. Nobody got hurt. The police fired a warning shot at nobody. Why is it news? Why news worthy of being reported in international press? Where's the newsworthiness in the article? In Sweden there's 10 000 acts of arson a year. Half of them is the act of children or teenagers, as it was in this case.

And the journalists spin on it worked. The fact that it got posted in this thread proves that enough people fell for it.

The point is, when the communist hunters who thought that way accused somebody of being a communist because he was a premature anti-fascist, they may well have cautiously verified that he really was speaking against fascism in 1933, and they may well have explained themselves, and they always had reasons, although we may disagree with their reasons. Do you seriously think that makes it ethical to call somebody a communist for being able to see how bad Hitler and Mussolini were before most people could? Of course it's unethical! It's not enough to have reasons. To make serious charges you have to have good reasons.

The reasons you have been offering over the years for accusing people of racism have systematically been stupid irrational reasons. "Since mostly dark people are Muslim I think it's fair to say that the target is dark people. That makes it racist." is a typical example of your "reasoning". Your explanations are of a piece with accusing someone of communism for being anti-fascist. You are a modern-day McCarthyist. McCarthyism is unethical.

This is a bullshit comparison. I only call people racist when they treat Islam as some sort of permanent condition that can't change. Or attribute things to Muslims that are clearly racial attributes and not based on an opinion (religion is an opinion).

But to use your analogy. McCarthyism was based on seeing Communism as a kind of mental virus that would sneak in and take hold of people. And once it did they didn't know their own best. So people had to be protected from themselves. This is similar to how the anti-refugee crowd is arguing.

Islam may be the cause of all manner of problems. But Muslims are also people. And people change their opinion about stuff. Bad ideas tend to die over time. We have no reason to believe Muslims coming here won't soften in their beliefs and become more liberal and western in their values. It's happened to every other immigrant group. What makes Muslims so special?

 

[bilby]

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a New York Times article on the topic

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/opinion/are-immigrants-causing-a-swedish-crime-wave.html

I think the summary says it all. How successful immigrants are in the new country has to do with the level of education they have prior to immigrating. Religion seems to be a non-factor.

Syria had a developed economy with a well educated population. Not as high as what is common in the west. But not far off. So we have little reason to think that the latest wave of immigrants will be a problem either.

 

[angelo]

Islam is highly democratic with power distributed.


Any faction of Islam is NOT compatible to democracy or Western culture!

Because you say so? Christianity is overtly opposed to democracy. They only encourage submission to the church. Islam only encourages submission to God. How do you explain that the "Christian" world is democratic? If religion is as important as you say the west should be the region with the least democracy in the world.

I can't see you have any arguments here.

Only Islam tells it's followers that if they're killed fighting non believers they'll die as martyers and get their just rewards by Allah of 72 virgins in a perpetual heavenly brothel!
Xtianity preaches peace and love to your fellow man!

 

[angelo]

Here's a New York Times article on the topic

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/opinion/are-immigrants-causing-a-swedish-crime-wave.html

I think the summary says it all. How successful immigrants are in the new country has to do with the level of education they have prior to immigrating. Religion seems to be a non-factor.

Syria had a developed economy with a well educated population. Not as high as what is common in the west. But not far off. So we have little reason to think that the latest wave of immigrants will be a problem either.

So it's fine to call the Daily Mail a bullshit paper, but fine to quote New York Times as a paragon of virtue?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Because you say so? Christianity is overtly opposed to democracy. They only encourage submission to the church. Islam only encourages submission to God. How do you explain that the "Christian" world is democratic? If religion is as important as you say the west should be the region with the least democracy in the world.

I can't see you have any arguments here.

Only Islam tells it's followers that if they're killed fighting non believers they'll die as martyers and get their just rewards by Allah of 72 virgins in a perpetual heavenly brothel!
Xtianity preaches peace and love to your fellow man!

If there is a Christian God, I think your post can be altered slightly as follows:

Only Islam tells it's followers that if they're killed fighting non believers they'll die as martyers and get their just rewards by Allah of a 72 year old virgin in a perpetual not so heavenly brothel!
Xtianity preaches peace and love to your fellow man!

- - - Updated - - -

Here's a New York Times article on the topic

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/opinion/are-immigrants-causing-a-swedish-crime-wave.html

I think the summary says it all. How successful immigrants are in the new country has to do with the level of education they have prior to immigrating. Religion seems to be a non-factor.

Syria had a developed economy with a well educated population. Not as high as what is common in the west. But not far off. So we have little reason to think that the latest wave of immigrants will be a problem either.

Syria, definitely until allies created the war there.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Only Islam tells it's followers that if they're killed fighting non believers they'll die as martyers and get their just rewards by Allah of 72 virgins in a perpetual heavenly brothel!

I didn't see any arguments of that Islam isn't compatible with democracy there.

But to the next issue.

As the overwhelming majority of Muslims will point out, that's an absurdly creative interpretation of the Quran.

It comes down to the interpretation of what an "Houri" is. In pagan Arab religion Houri is a genie bestowing good people with rewards for being good. The Houri in the Quran is lifted right out of that mythology. Not only are the houri virgins but they are wholly transparent, so the only thing clearly visible is their bones. Sexy! Including them makes no sense unless we see the houris as nothing but listings of idealised traits to convey that these are supreme pleasure endowing magical beings somehow. No mainstream Muslim scholar has ever interpreted the houris as anything but something generally pleasurable Muslims in heaven are bestowed with.

The Bible contains loads of references to things that only the Roman pagans would understand because, guess what, Roman pagans was the audience. Likewise Mohammed used references his audience would understand.

No, it doesn't make sense. But so little of religion does. I haven't seen references to the 72 virgins as actual women anywhere but in anti-Islamic sites. I don't like Islam either. But I prefer attacking Islam for things they teach, rather than straw men.

Xtianity preaches peace and love to your fellow man!

And how's that worked out?

 

[DrZoidberg]

So it's fine to call the Daily Mail a bullshit paper, but fine to quote New York Times as a paragon of virtue?

Um.. yes. The New York times is always listed among the topmost in reliable and accurate in news reporting. They're trusted by the left and the right. More by liberals than conservatives. But none the less well trusted across the board. With good reason. They have an impeccable track record.

Daily Mail seems to be trusted by only TSwizzle. It's a tabloid. They're not selling news. They're selling entertainment. They're not even trying to be honest. People don't read the Daily Mail to learn things. They read it for the same reason people would watch Game of Thrones. I don't think anybody has bothered with checking how accurate the Daily Mail is. Why bother? Have they managed to write anything that's true yet? People were saying the same shit about the Daily Mail during the Spanish Civil war. Nothing has changed!

 

[whichphilosophy]

So it's fine to call the Daily Mail a bullshit paper, but fine to quote New York Times as a paragon of virtue?

Um.. yes. The New York times is always listed among the topmost in reliable and accurate in news reporting. They're trusted by the left and the right. More by liberals than conservatives. But none the less well trusted across the board. With good reason. They have an impeccable track record.

Daily Mail seems to be trusted by only TSwizzle. It's a tabloid. They're not selling news. They're selling entertainment. They're not even trying to be honest. People don't read the Daily Mail to learn things. They read it for the same reason people would watch Game of Thrones. I don't think anybody has bothered with checking how accurate the Daily Mail is. Why bother? Have they managed to write anything that's true yet? People were saying the same shit about the Daily Mail during the Spanish Civil war. Nothing has changed!

Actually I used to think the NYT was reliable but not in the past few years. The Daily Mail, CNN, BBC, NYT,ITV, Washington Post, Fox News are all biased. The Daily Mail was the UK paper that supported Hitler and other stupid things. The news from these would not be reliable where they print a copy of a report, or a document.
Surprisingly Al Jazeera is an interesting news media as it gives more detailed news. Some might say Breitbart news is reliable as it is a bit to the right (as opposed to the left) it will be unreliable as it would generalise.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Um.. yes. The New York times is always listed among the topmost in reliable and accurate in news reporting. They're trusted by the left and the right. More by liberals than conservatives. But none the less well trusted across the board. With good reason. They have an impeccable track record.

Daily Mail seems to be trusted by only TSwizzle. It's a tabloid. They're not selling news. They're selling entertainment. They're not even trying to be honest. People don't read the Daily Mail to learn things. They read it for the same reason people would watch Game of Thrones. I don't think anybody has bothered with checking how accurate the Daily Mail is. Why bother? Have they managed to write anything that's true yet? People were saying the same shit about the Daily Mail during the Spanish Civil war. Nothing has changed!

Actually I used to think the NYT was reliable but not in the past few years. The Daily Mail, CNN, BBC, NYT,ITV, Washington Post, Fox News are all biased. The Daily Mail was the UK paper that supported Hitler and other stupid things. The news from these would not be reliable where they print a copy of a report, or a document.
Surprisingly Al Jazeera is an interesting news media as it gives more detailed news. Some might say Breitbart news is reliable as it is a bit to the right (as opposed to the left) it will be unreliable as it would generalise.

Come on. You can't put CNN, BBC, NYT and Washington Post in the same category as Fox News. Fox News is another populist bullshit outlet.

The Daily Mail is famous for saying whatever the British working class wants to hear. In British academia they're often referenced as a very good barometer of what the British poor think. And that's the clue.

Newspapers are businesses. The will print whatever sells. They all have their niche and they all have to pander. The more well educated their market the more careful the journalists will be and the more reliable it will be. Simply because their readers will catch them when they bullshit and they will lose market share. Any newspaper that caters to the working class seems to get away with constantly publishing any nonsense. So why wouldn't they do it? Making shit up is a lot cheaper than aiming for accuracy.

A good thing to look at is the standards they demand from their journalists. No Swedish newspaper will ever come close the accuracy of the New York Times because they couldn't possibly afford it. Producing high quality news is expensive. The Washington Post doesn't publish anything if they haven't got a journalist on the spot to verify every last detail. BBC seems to have one journalist waiting in every bush just in case.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So it's fine to call the Daily Mail a bullshit paper, but fine to quote New York Times as a paragon of virtue?

Um.. yes. The New York times is always listed among the topmost in reliable and accurate in news reporting. They're trusted by the left and the right. More by liberals than conservatives. But none the less well trusted across the board. With good reason. They have an impeccable track record.

Daily Mail seems to be trusted by only TSwizzle. It's a tabloid. They're not selling news. They're selling entertainment. They're not even trying to be honest. People don't read the Daily Mail to learn things. They read it for the same reason people would watch Game of Thrones. I don't think anybody has bothered with checking how accurate the Daily Mail is. Why bother? Have they managed to write anything that's true yet? People were saying the same shit about the Daily Mail during the Spanish Civil war. Nothing has changed!

We have to take all media with a pinch of salt. A reporter maybe sincere but the source is wrong. Sometimes they quote other sources verbatum. I sometimes watch Fox or CNN debates as these are people arguing rather than printed work.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Um.. yes. The New York times is always listed among the topmost in reliable and accurate in news reporting. They're trusted by the left and the right. More by liberals than conservatives. But none the less well trusted across the board. With good reason. They have an impeccable track record.

Daily Mail seems to be trusted by only TSwizzle. It's a tabloid. They're not selling news. They're selling entertainment. They're not even trying to be honest. People don't read the Daily Mail to learn things. They read it for the same reason people would watch Game of Thrones. I don't think anybody has bothered with checking how accurate the Daily Mail is. Why bother? Have they managed to write anything that's true yet? People were saying the same shit about the Daily Mail during the Spanish Civil war. Nothing has changed!

We have to take all media with a pinch of salt. A reporter maybe sincere but the source is wrong. Sometimes they quote other sources verbatum. I sometimes watch Fox or CNN debates as these are people arguing rather than printed work.

Some with a pinch. Others with buckets worth of salt.

 

[PyramidHead]

Some might say Breitbart news is reliable as it is a bit to the right

Breitbart news is reliable as it is a bit to the right

reliable as it is a bit to the right

a bit to the right

a bit

...

 

[TSwizzle]

Oh dear;

A Swedish minister has admitted she was wrong after claiming the number of sex attacks in the country had decreased.
Integration minister Ylva Johansson claimed in a television interview that the number of rapes in Sweden was 'going down, and going down, and going down'. But days later it emerged that, despite a 12 per cent dip in 2015, the number of sex attacks had in fact climbed 13 per cent in 2016.

DailyMail: Ylva Johansson probably doesn't exist and the Daily Fail made her up

If you can't trust a government minister to be honest, who can you trust ?

 

[LordKiran]

I didn't see any arguments of that Islam isn't compatible with democracy there.

But to the next issue.

As the overwhelming majority of Muslims will point out, that's an absurdly creative interpretation of the Quran.

It comes down to the interpretation of what an "Houri" is. In pagan Arab religion Houri is a genie bestowing good people with rewards for being good. The Houri in the Quran is lifted right out of that mythology. Not only are the houri virgins but they are wholly transparent, so the only thing clearly visible is their bones. Sexy! Including them makes no sense unless we see the houris as nothing but listings of idealised traits to convey that these are supreme pleasure endowing magical beings somehow. No mainstream Muslim scholar has ever interpreted the houris as anything but something generally pleasurable Muslims in heaven are bestowed with.

The Bible contains loads of references to things that only the Roman pagans would understand because, guess what, Roman pagans was the audience. Likewise Mohammed used references his audience would understand.

No, it doesn't make sense. But so little of religion does. I haven't seen references to the 72 virgins as actual women anywhere but in anti-Islamic sites. I don't like Islam either. But I prefer attacking Islam for things they teach, rather than straw men.

Xtianity preaches peace and love to your fellow man!

And how's that worked out?

View attachment 10158

I can't tell if your image is you being facetious or not.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Breitbart news is reliable as it is a bit to the right

reliable as it is a bit to the right

a bit to the right

a bit

...

I also finished the same sentence by saying

it will be unreliable as it would generalise.

The problem with the Extreme Left Wing (and Marxists) the Extreme Islamists and the Right Wing is they only see in black and white and not in shades of grey.