Europe submits voluntarily

[Hermit]

1870s American bathing suit for women.



No burka or hijab, but I don't see how one could argue that the above suit was just reflecting mores in that society at that time, while head and face covers do not.

Mores change. They just change at different rates in different cultures.

 

[Jokodo]

BTW, you know one group of people that really refuses to integrate into a secularised society?

That would be the Slovaks

They've shared a country with the Czechs, possibly the most secular nation on the planet, for 70 years. In Czechia, the traditionally dominant Catholic Church today claims a membership of about 10% of the population, though this maybe an exaggeration even. Minority religions included, no more than 10-15% of the population are associated with any kind of organised religion. When asked whether they believe in God, two thirds will say no.

And the Slovaks, did they adapt and integrate? No, after three generations as a minority in Czechoslovakia, over 80% are still members of a recognised religious group (mostly Roman Catholics, but with sizable Greek Catholic and Protestant minorities). That's one of the highest numbers in Central Europe, along with Poland, Croatia, and Italy, and well ahead not only of Czechia but also of Germany, Austria, or Hungary.

I dare you to find one example of a Muslim minority or immigrant group with a similarly large gap in religiosity compared to the local majority population, after a similar amount of time!

(No, I'm not proposing Slovak bans or any such thing. It's called a reductio ad absurdum.)

 

[TSwizzle]

Good grief.

Mandarins at the Foreign Office invited staff to wear Islamic headscarves for the day, claiming they symbolised ‘liberation, respect and security’. The department was accused of backing the ‘institutional oppression of women’ by giving away taxpayer-funded headscarves at a walk-in event to mark World Hijab Day.
The event was held as women in ultra-conservative Iran burned their headscarves in protest at being forced to wear them or face arrest and prison.

DailMail

Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said: ‘I’d like to know whose bright idea this was. It is ridiculous, a complete waste of taxpayers’ money and not the business of a Government department. I can’t see the Foreign Office promoting Christianity or the handing out of crosses.’

Me too Andrew, me too.

 

[Jokodo]

Good grief.

Mandarins at the Foreign Office invited staff to wear Islamic headscarves for the day, claiming they symbolised ‘liberation, respect and security’. The department was accused of backing the ‘institutional oppression of women’ by giving away taxpayer-funded headscarves at a walk-in event to mark World Hijab Day.
The event was held as women in ultra-conservative Iran burned their headscarves in protest at being forced to wear them or face arrest and prison.

DailMail

Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said: ‘I’d like to know whose bright idea this was. It is ridiculous, a complete waste of taxpayers’ money and not the business of a Government department. I can’t see the Foreign Office promoting Christianity or the handing out of crosses.’

Me too Andrew, me too.

Daily Mail?

Need I say more?

 

[Derec]

Daily Mail?

Need I say more?

Yes, you do. Do you think British government 'encouraging' women to wear the hijab and participating in the 'World hijab day' is good or not?

In any case, it's yet another sign of Islamization.

 

[Jokodo]

Daily Mail?

Need I say more?

Yes, you do. Do you think British government 'encouraging' women to wear the hijab and participating in the 'World hijab day' is good or not?
In any case, it's yet another sign of Islamization.

Have you found a Muslim minority in a Western country with a religiosity gap relative to the majority as large as the Slovaks' religiosity gap was in Czechoslovakia?

No? Thought so.

By the way, American Muslims are more likely to support abortion rights than American Catholics. They're in fact almost twice as likely to do so than Mormons or Southern Baptists, and right there with Anglicans and the national average.

 

[Derec]

Have you found a Muslim minority in a Western country with a religiosity gap relative to the majority as large as the Slovaks' religiosity gap was in Czechoslovakia?

I asked you a specific question about UK government supporting women wearing hijabs, calling it "liberating", and you are rambling about Slovaks and abortion.
How about you answer the question, rather than your usual fare of telling us how great Islam is.

 

[Jokodo]

Have you found a Muslim minority in a Western country with a religiosity gap relative to the majority as large as the Slovaks' religiosity gap was in Czechoslovakia?

I asked you a specific question about UK government supporting women wearing hijabs, calling it "liberating", and you are rambling about Slovaks and abortion.
How about you answer the question, rather than your usual fare of telling us how great Islam is.

Thanks for posting that poster.

It clearly shows that the Daily Mail article is deliberate hyperbole.
It says, as quoted by Twizzle, that the Foreign Office claimed the hijab "symbolised ‘liberation, respect and security’", when you poster clearly shows it claimed no such thing. Instead, it says "many Muslim women find ...".

That's not endorsing a proposition, it's reporting an utterance. Unsurprisingly, the Daily Mail's journalism was sloppy once again. Case. Closed.

 

[Derec]

That's not endorsing a proposition, it's reporting an utterance. Unsurprisingly, the Daily Mail's journalism was sloppy once again. Case. Closed.

By "reporting a [pro-hijab] utterance" at an official poster promoting the "World hijab day" the Foreign Office is taking a side in favor of hijab. It was certainly no neutral information about what some Muslims say.
And the poster is not all. They also encouraged female staff to try on a hijab and even provided taxpayer-funded hijabs for the occasion.

But as long as Muslims are not Slovaks and say they are theoretically pro-abortion while collecting benefits checks for their 5-10 children, all is well, right?

 

[Jokodo]

That's not endorsing a proposition, it's reporting an utterance. Unsurprisingly, the Daily Mail's journalism was sloppy once again. Case. Closed.

By "reporting a [pro-hijab] utterance" at an official poster promoting the "World hijab day" the Foreign Office is taking a side in favor of hijab.

No it's not. It's reporting an utterance, with the goal of promoting understanding of the motive but explicitly without endorsing it.

And the poster is not all. They also encouraged female staff to try on a hijab and even provided taxpayer-funded hijabs for the occasion.

Google "mayor opening church site:.uk", you'll get literally thousands of hits were mayors of various British towns are spending their taxpayer-paid working hours supporting and, if you will, endorsing Christianity, as reported by the local newspaper. If you are really just about keeping religion and state separated, you should be up in arms about that too!

But as long as Muslims are not Slovaks and say they are theoretically pro-abortion while collecting benefits checks for their 5-10 children, all is well, right?

I did a long post crunching actual numbers that demonstrates those 5-10 are utter bullshit. You pretended you didn't see it and now you bring up the same failed argument again?

If it were so that Muslims in Europe have total fertility rates between 5 and 10, we'd notice the effect by comparing countries with varying proportions of Muslims: Assume for example that the standard mainline European TFR is 1.4, and let's take the lower end of your range for Muslim TFRs: If that is so, a country with 8% Muslims should have a TFR of 1.688 (0.92 * 1.4 + 0.08 * 5.0), while a country with 2% Muslims should have a TFR of 1.472 (5 * 0.02 + 1.4 * 0.98), and a country like Montenegro with 20% Muslims should have a TFR of 2.12 (=5 * 0.2 + 1.4 * 0.8). No such trend is corraborated by actual data.

"Setzen, fünf!" (I guess it would be "setzen, sechs" in Germany, but our grades only go up to five.)

 

[Derec]

No it's not. It's reporting an utterance, with the goal of promoting understanding of the motive but explicitly without endorsing it.

Bullshit. This in not neutral reporting, this is promoting of "World Hijab Day". Where they provided taxpayer-funded hijabs and encouraged women to wear them.

Google "mayor opening church site:.uk", you'll get literally thousands of hits were mayors of various British towns are spending their taxpayer-paid working hours supporting and, if you will, endorsing Christianity, as reported by the local newspaper. If you are really just about keeping religion and state separated, you should be up in arms about that too!

Tu quoque fallacy. And in any case, Foreign Office supporting an article of clothing mandated by fundamentalist Islam shows how much clout Islam already has in UK.

I did a long post crunching actual numbers that demonstrates those 5-10 are utter bullshit. You pretended you didn't see it and now you bring up the same failed argument again?

I plan too address that when I have more time. But it is definitely not bullshit. Muslims have a lot of children, especially those from places like Afghanistan, and it is from Afghanistan that many migrants have come and are still coming. The statistics are distorted by so many of migrants being men who came by themselves and not families, but when families come they tend to be large. And of course, when these men start bringing families from Afghanistan (or other shithole countries) they will have their huge numbers of children too.
Some examples:
Wirbel um 8.252 Euro Sozialhilfe für Familie
In fact, every time a "refugee" family is featured in the media, it tends to be very large. I guess those are all outliers, because es kann nicht sein, was nicht sein darf.
'They treated her like a dog': tragedy of the six-year-old killed at Croatian border
The family with 10(!) children tried to illegally get to UK (to claim ample benefits no doubt) and Grauniad predictably is taking their side, as if they had the right to illegal migration.

"Setzen, fünf!" (I guess it would be "setzen, sechs" in Germany, but our grades only go up to five.)

I think you deserve a 6.

 

[Jokodo]

Bullshit. This in not neutral reporting, this is promoting of "World Hijab Day". Where they provided taxpayer-funded hijabs and encouraged women to wear them.


Tu quoque fallacy. And in any case, Foreign Office supporting an article of clothing mandated by fundamentalist Islam shows how much clout Islam already has in UK.

How is that a tu quoque? TSwizzle approvingly quoted a Daily Fail article, and a Tory politician cited therein, complaining that he "can’t see [a government institution] promoting Christianity". I provided an example of government institutions promoting Christianity on an almost daily basis!

I did a long post crunching actual numbers that demonstrates those 5-10 are utter bullshit. You pretended you didn't see it and now you bring up the same failed argument again?

I plan too address that when I have more time. But it is definitely not bullshit. Muslims have a lot of children, especially those from places like Afghanistan, and it is from Afghanistan that many migrants have come and are still coming.

And I showed that that's plain false. People from the least developed countries tend to have many children, irrespective of religion. Muslims tend to live in poorer regions than Christians, so globally, Muslims do have a higher TFR (total fertility rate), but that dissipates when you make a within-region comparison.

In Southeast Asia, the country with the highest TFR is the poorest country - East Timor which happens to be almost exclusively Christian; other than that, there are both Muslim and Buddhist countries with high or low fertility rates (there are no Christian countries with low fertility rates, but only because there aren't many Christian countries). In Africa, the country with the highest TFR (also the highest globally) is Niger which happens to be mostly Muslim. Other than that, more developed countries tend to have low fertility rates, while less devolepoed countries tend to have high ones irrespective of religion. If there's a slight correlation between Islam and and TFRs, it's because in West Africa, there's a North-South cline in the number of Muslims, and "North" in West Africa means landlocked and thus less cosmopolitan. You can check this on any map.

When people migrate from a less prosperous to a more prosperous country, it takes up to a generation for ther TFRs to normalise to the mainstream rate, less when they're allowed to integrate well. So yes, Afghans in Germany will have TFRs in the 2.x range well into the 2020s, but no higher, and not for longer.

The statistics are distorted by so many of migrants being men who came by themselves and not families,

No, they are not. They cannot be, in principle. TFR means number of children per woman, extrapolated over her lifetime based on the number of children 15-year-old, 16-year-old,...46-year-old etc. women are having. The statistics can be distorted when a society is undergoing a change from having children at an early age to having them later (when the present 20-year-olds are only having so few children because they're waiting till they're 30, while the present 30-year-olds are only having so few children because they already had them when they were 20), but it cannot, in principle, be distorted by an overabundance of males.

but when families come they tend to be large. And of course, when these men start bringing families from Afghanistan (or other shithole countries) they will have their huge numbers of children too.
Some examples:
Wirbel um 8.252 Euro Sozialhilfe für Familie
In fact, every time a "refugee" family is featured in the media, it tends to be very large. I guess those are all outliers, because es kann nicht sein, was nicht sein darf.

Yes, they're outliers. Not because nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf, but because we have actual statistics that show them to be outliers.

Also, newspapers in general and tabloids in particular want to generate clicks. They want to bring exceptional, extraordinary stories. Do I really have to explain to you that an average Syrian refugee family with 2.9 children when the mother enters menopause isn't selling as well?

Also, I know some Bioösterreicher with 8 and more children, but I've never seen a feature about them. My own grandfather was one of 13 (!) of which eleven survived childhood.

 

[Jokodo]

By the way, here's a plot of countries' TFR against their per capita GDP:


(via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility)

It's very clear that there's a correlation. The outliers that are marked in the chart are all but one countries which have "undeserved" wealth: They didn't get rich by promoting education and developing a diverse and innovative economy, they became rich by discovering that the ground beneath them is full of oil.

That would be Oman, Iraq, and Gabon (the latter being a Christian country).

The only country that has a higher-than-expected TFR despite not living almost exclusively from rent on its oilfields is Israel.


So if you really want to claim that religion is a factor in high TFRs while maintaining a semblance of a connection to reality, you'd have to claim that Judaism, not Islam, leads to high fertility rates!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Another way to say what I want to say:

Some people imply a causal relation between religion and high fertility rates.

We all know that correlation doesn't imply causation (or so I hope), so even if we did find a correlation, it might not mean much.

The problem is worse however: Once we make an apples to apples comparison, the correlation itself evaporates. For example in Europe, the total fertility rate (TFR) for countries with almost no Muslims tends to be between 1.4 and 1.8, though there are exceptions like Iceland and Ireland, with rates above 2.0. The TFR for countries with single-digit-percentages of Muslim minorities tends to be in the range of 1.4 to 1.8, with one exception: France at 2.07. The TFR for countries with double digit minorities or even a majority of Muslims (all of which are countries that have harbored Muslims for centuries) tends to be in the range of 1.4 - 1.8, though there are exceptions: Bosnia (50.7% Muslims, TFR 1.28, and Kosovo, >90% Muslims and a TFR of 2.09).

Similarly in Africa: Countries with almost no Muslims tend to have TFRs between 4 and just over 6, with the exception of a handful of more developed countries in Southern Africa with TFRs between 2 and 3.5, which happen to have almost no Muslims. Countries with a more or less even split between Muslims and non-Muslims tend to have TFRs between 4 and just over 6. Countries with clear Muslim majorities tend to have TFRs between 4 and just over 6, with the exception of a handful of more developed North African countries with TFRs in the 2-3.5 children per woman range (which happen to be almost entirely Muslim).

Basically, your problem isn't that correlation doesn't imply causation. A much bigger problem is that you don't have a correlation to start with!

Your data has a big problem:

TFR is much more related to the local economy and culture than to religion.

If Angelo's argument is right what's important is the % of immigrant Muslims, not Muslims overall. (Reality: Immigrants tend to have a TFR similar to where they came from, not where they went to.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The only country that has a higher-than-expected TFR despite not living almost exclusively from rent on its oilfields is Israel.


So if you really want to claim that religion is a factor in high TFRs while maintaining a semblance of a connection to reality, you'd have to claim that Judaism, not Islam, leads to high fertility rates!

The Israeli data is contaminated--it's not the Jews with the high TFR. That's coming from Gaza/West Bank.

Thus 100% of your outliers are due to resources.

 

[Jokodo]

Another way to say what I want to say:

Some people imply a causal relation between religion and high fertility rates.

We all know that correlation doesn't imply causation (or so I hope), so even if we did find a correlation, it might not mean much.

The problem is worse however: Once we make an apples to apples comparison, the correlation itself evaporates. For example in Europe, the total fertility rate (TFR) for countries with almost no Muslims tends to be between 1.4 and 1.8, though there are exceptions like Iceland and Ireland, with rates above 2.0. The TFR for countries with single-digit-percentages of Muslim minorities tends to be in the range of 1.4 to 1.8, with one exception: France at 2.07. The TFR for countries with double digit minorities or even a majority of Muslims (all of which are countries that have harbored Muslims for centuries) tends to be in the range of 1.4 - 1.8, though there are exceptions: Bosnia (50.7% Muslims, TFR 1.28, and Kosovo, >90% Muslims and a TFR of 2.09).

Similarly in Africa: Countries with almost no Muslims tend to have TFRs between 4 and just over 6, with the exception of a handful of more developed countries in Southern Africa with TFRs between 2 and 3.5, which happen to have almost no Muslims. Countries with a more or less even split between Muslims and non-Muslims tend to have TFRs between 4 and just over 6. Countries with clear Muslim majorities tend to have TFRs between 4 and just over 6, with the exception of a handful of more developed North African countries with TFRs in the 2-3.5 children per woman range (which happen to be almost entirely Muslim).

Basically, your problem isn't that correlation doesn't imply causation. A much bigger problem is that you don't have a correlation to start with!

Your data has a big problem:

TFR is much more related to the local economy and culture than to religion.

If Angelo's argument is right what's important is the % of immigrant Muslims, not Muslims overall. (Reality: Immigrants tend to have a TFR similar to where they came from, not where they went to.)

Yes and no.

Reality: If you exclude the European countries with longstanding Muslim minorities or even majorities (there's an easy way to do this: exclude all countries with Muslims >10% - as it happens no Western European country with Muslim minorities originating from 20th/21st century immigration exceeds that threshold), there's still no significant correlation. I checked it.

Immigrants, at the moment they arrive, tend to have TFRs similar to where they came from, but that difference quickly dissipates.

That TFR is "much more related to the local economy and culture than to religion" is exactly the point I'm trying to make, and which angelo and others are denying. In fact, I'm willing to argue that economy is the only biggie of these two (another one is educational standards: many Eastern European countries, whether or not they have high numbers of Muslims, have low TFRs, and lower ones than expected from their GDP alone; they also have higher educational standards than expected from their GDP alone, and pretty much all countries where TFR doesn't follow the GDP correlation in the other direction have undeserved income).

If we did allow religion as a major factor, we'd come to the conclusion that if anything, it's judaism, not islam, that's most strongly connected with high TFRs.

- - - Updated - - -

The only country that has a higher-than-expected TFR despite not living almost exclusively from rent on its oilfields is Israel.


So if you really want to claim that religion is a factor in high TFRs while maintaining a semblance of a connection to reality, you'd have to claim that Judaism, not Islam, leads to high fertility rates!

The Israeli data is contaminated--it's not the Jews with the high TFR. That's coming from Gaza/West Bank.

Thus 100% of your outliers are due to resources.

Israel's data does not include Gaza, and it does not include West Bank Arabs (who incidentally have a lower TFR than Israel).

It does include West Bank Jewish settlers.

If you rank the subpopulations of Israel/Palestine by TFR, what you get is approximately this: West Bank settlers > (but almost equal) Gaza strip > Israel proper > West Bank Arabs.

 

[bilby]

And the poster is not all. They also encouraged female staff to try on a hijab and even provided taxpayer-funded hijabs for the occasion.

Google "mayor opening church site:.uk", you'll get literally thousands of hits were mayors of various British towns are spending their taxpayer-paid working hours supporting and, if you will, endorsing Christianity, as reported by the local newspaper. If you are really just about keeping religion and state separated, you should be up in arms about that too!

That's NOTHING.

The Church of England (a Christian church) is an OFFICIAL PART OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT of the UK. Their Bishops sit in the national legislature by right as bishops (a privilege afforded no other sect or denomination of any religion); The head of their church is also the head of state.

Let me know when 26 Imams are able to vote on and amend British Government legislation by right, solely because of their status in British Islam. That will be the time to worry more about Muslim influence on Britain than about Christian influence.

 

[angelo]

So you agree that a Europe that has allegedly submitted voluntarily is still a much nicer place than anywhere in the US?

I said it is a nicer place than certain high-crime cities in the US.
But yes, there are certain aspects of Europe that are still very nice. Some, such as high levels of social services are threatened by these safety nets being overburdened by mass migration of people who are net drain on it because they have no or few skills and a gazillion children.
Other qualities that make Europe a nice place to live are in direct conflict with Islamic prohibitions and are thus directly threatened by Islamisation.
Old Europe:

New Europe:

Old Europe:
View attachment 14384
New Europe:

Old Europe:

New Europe:

And so on.

Jesus Christ on a pogostick! What´s the matter with you? None of those things are banned, you can stil flog your tits on the beach here, there are tits, beer and fucking pork everywhere. Have you not been to Europe since your family fled to Argentina in 1945?

That may well be true................for now............but what about when muzzies make up, say, 50-80% of the population in say, 50-100 years?

 

[Hermit]

Jesus Christ on a pogostick! What´s the matter with you? None of those things are banned, you can stil flog your tits on the beach here, there are tits, beer and fucking pork everywhere. Have you not been to Europe since your family fled to Argentina in 1945?

That may well be true................for now............but what about when muzzies make up, say, 50-80% of the population in say, 50-100 years?

In 50-100 years' time the "muzzies" will have assimilated culturally to the extent that they will be indistinguishable from the society they migrated to.

 

[angelo]

There's abundance evidence available that " muzzies" do not assimilate very well into Western democracies!