Grooming, BBC, etc

[ToRmAtO]

You cannot prove there is a link with ' grooming gangs with Muslims' either.

[m4rkb]

I give up
OK stupid wins

Mohammed VS Christopher. Which background?

What is your answer?

[m4rkb]

We just can't even get out of the traps on this can we, when the only apologist response so far is to continually deny any link between grooming gangs with Muslims.
Maybe it would help if they spelt out what they would actually take as proof of such a link and maybe we can take it from there?

All the ones with beards are certainly on the list.

The ones with a beard but no moustache are even more on the list.

This has to be the biggest exercise in pure denial ever.

[Roy Twing]

You cannot prove there is a link with ' grooming gangs with Muslims' either.

Really?
Are we genuinely that far away from intelligent debate on this?

[ToRmAtO]

Intelligent debate requires FACTS !!!

[Roy Twing]

As I asked in response to hillman last night (ignored as ever of course) - maybe a better way to try and get somewhere is to ask what your mindset would take as facts/proof on this?

[Vespa]

Intelligent debate requires FACTS !!!

And the ability to consume them.

[kancutlawns]

And the diligence to produce an objective response.

[kancutlawns]

As I asked in response to hillman last night (ignored as ever of course) - maybe a better way to try and get somewhere is to ask what your mindset would take as facts/proof on this?

“Mindset” = ad hominem.

[Ralph]

Are the "apologists" still disgracing themselves by special pleading on behalf of Roman Catholic/non-Muslim pedophiles? It appears so.

You’d think they’d make a tiny bit of effort to pretend they care about the actual victims of child abuse. Just so it didn’t look so cynical & heartless.

Instead they use them to score political points about a separate issue - the only one they really care about - race.

[Roy Twing]

It's clear there's going to be no help from the apologist (if they don't like this adjective then please suggest an acceptable alternative) side of the one-sided debate.
Here's an offering from a generally respected newspaper, - I think it introduces the basics of the obvious connections between the religion and the various 'incompatibilities' - let's see if anyone wants to discuss it, or just indulge in more whataboutery/ad hominem/strawmanning etc:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... laims.html

This is just an opening offering, there is an almost never-ending supply of evidence to draw from - I'd just like some help as to what would make them actually take part just for once.

[Zambo]

As for the "proportionality"...the point is that the overwhelming majority of grooming is by WHITE MEN. Who abuse positions as teachers, doctors, priests, etc, or who have access via their family. WHERE DO YOU OR TWING EVER CONDEMN THAT? HOW MUCH MEDIA COVERAGE IS THERE OF ALL OF THOSE??
And a subset of that, without argument, is Catholic priests and teaching brothers. Where their behaviour is known about but tolerated until they have to be moved to another unsuspecting community.
Proportionality?
EXACTLY

There are times when numbers mean fuck all without analysis, and this is one of them. If you have one miliion white Christians and a half a million Mulsims, and 20% of white Christians are in prison because of grooming and 40% of the Muslims are, you of course have a problem, but on that ratio, and with the number of Muslims rising, the problem exacerbates.

ps I condemn all grooming.

pps The problem starts on here when each side believes the other isn't acknowledging the other sides points, and condemning where they think they should. Everyone needs to give their heads good shake, and ask their minds to open up a bit. And minds aren't the font of all knowledge by the way, which means they are not always right.

[Zambo]

ps, a good example of this is on the threads about Iran and Trump. Because of some peoples hatred for Trump, posts come across that they are defending Iran, which I don't believe they are, but that is how it can seem. Food for thought.

[Ralph]

ps, a good example of this is on the threads about Iran and Trump. Because of some peoples hatred for Trump, posts come across that they are defending Iran, which I don't believe they are, but that is how it can seem. Food for thought.

And some people’s unswerving support for Trump makes it appear as though they’re changing their opinion about the wisdom of interventions/wars in the Middle East depending on what Trump is saying/doing that day.

[Hillman avenger]

It's clear there's going to be no help from the apologist (if they don't like this adjective then please suggest an acceptable alternative) side of the one-sided debate.
Here's an offering from a generally respected newspaper, - I think it introduces the basics of the obvious connections between the religion and the various 'incompatibilities' - let's see if anyone wants to discuss it, or just indulge in more whataboutery/ad hominem/strawmanning etc:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... laims.html

This is just an opening offering, there is an almost never-ending supply of evidence to draw from - I'd just like some help as to what would make them actually take part just for once.

I have read that Roy
Do you realise the original source is the Daily Mail?
There is as much to contradict your argument in there as there is to support it.
No doubt there are rogue Imams and they are to be deplored.
Just as there are some who encourage terrorism.
But the article also makes the point that what they say is not in accordance with the religion. The fact that they are Imams just gives them more opportunity to preach their personal prejudice.
By the same token, it is not the doctrine of the Catholic church that its clergy should abuse children. Yet it occurs and is at the very least, condoned. Rather than those guilty being confronted, they are moved on to another unsuspecting community.
Should we there fore condemn Catholics?
What is causing this recent grief is your constant complaint that somehow this is hushed up. When the experience of the rest of us is that it isn't. And the CPS revelation suggests that indeed it might be disproportionately publicised as opposed to the bulk of other cases.
And throughout this, I and others have been struck by , throughout your many, many posts, there is no expression of sympathy for the victims. Just as desire to use their experience to make points about your view on multiculturalism ( which by the way has very little if anything to do with the EU or Labour or any other of the bogeymen you like to invoke).