Finally Plod Have Found Someone For The...
News3 mins ago
Are They Right Not To Trust Them?
101 Answers
http://
This survey was carried out among the young, I would think that the figures would have been much higher among the more elderly.
We all know that it is only a small minority of Muslims who commit such horrendous attacks such as 'The Twin Towers' 'The London Bus and Tube Attacks', 'The Murder of Lee Rigby' and more recently 'The Kenyan Shopping Mall Terror Attack', and 'The attack carried out on the Christian church in Pakistan'.
But are these not sufficient to instil fear and mistrust?
This survey was carried out among the young, I would think that the figures would have been much higher among the more elderly.
We all know that it is only a small minority of Muslims who commit such horrendous attacks such as 'The Twin Towers' 'The London Bus and Tube Attacks', 'The Murder of Lee Rigby' and more recently 'The Kenyan Shopping Mall Terror Attack', and 'The attack carried out on the Christian church in Pakistan'.
But are these not sufficient to instil fear and mistrust?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
ck1
/// How many people don't trust staffy bull terriers? There are a few highlighted incidents on the news about them attacking kids and suddenly the whole breed is going to eat you. It's not necessarily right, but the events do instil a degree of caution into us which I think is natural. We have survived so long for having the ability to judge danger even if there's no immediate threat ///
The 'staffy bull terriers' analogy was a very good point, and strangely the same thought came into my head before I came across ck1's post.
We can also take it from the animals point of view, there are many humans that would never think about harming one of God's creatures, but many wild animals, and domesticated ones as well, (those that have been abused), who are very fearful of humans, which obviously must prove to be a very wise position to take.
/// How many people don't trust staffy bull terriers? There are a few highlighted incidents on the news about them attacking kids and suddenly the whole breed is going to eat you. It's not necessarily right, but the events do instil a degree of caution into us which I think is natural. We have survived so long for having the ability to judge danger even if there's no immediate threat ///
The 'staffy bull terriers' analogy was a very good point, and strangely the same thought came into my head before I came across ck1's post.
We can also take it from the animals point of view, there are many humans that would never think about harming one of God's creatures, but many wild animals, and domesticated ones as well, (those that have been abused), who are very fearful of humans, which obviously must prove to be a very wise position to take.
sp1814
/// Perhaps young Muslims are like young Christians. They too are brought up to believe homosexuality is a sin, but there are degrees of faith aren't there? Not all Christians spend every weekend marching up and down shouting about the wages of sin etc etc...///
/// I assume it's the same with Muslims. ///
Not a fair comparison by any stretch of the imagination, a few Christians marching up and down shouting about the wages of sin etc, etc can in no way be compared with a few Muslims marching up and down, calling for all homosexuals, Jews and British soldiers etc to be killed.
/// Perhaps young Muslims are like young Christians. They too are brought up to believe homosexuality is a sin, but there are degrees of faith aren't there? Not all Christians spend every weekend marching up and down shouting about the wages of sin etc etc...///
/// I assume it's the same with Muslims. ///
Not a fair comparison by any stretch of the imagination, a few Christians marching up and down shouting about the wages of sin etc, etc can in no way be compared with a few Muslims marching up and down, calling for all homosexuals, Jews and British soldiers etc to be killed.
AOG
"We can also take it from the animals point of view, there are many humans that would never think about harming one of God's creatures, but many wild animals, and domesticated ones as well, (those that have been abused), who are very fearful of humans, which obviously must prove to be a very wise position to take"
No.
"We can also take it from the animals point of view, there are many humans that would never think about harming one of God's creatures, but many wild animals, and domesticated ones as well, (those that have been abused), who are very fearful of humans, which obviously must prove to be a very wise position to take"
No.
Understand that Muslims, wherever they are born, consider themselves to be brothers (and sisters) and deem Islam beyond censure, so whilst the majority of Muslims are not terrorists, those that aren’t have a very real problem in openly criticising anything that their brothers or sisters do – and what they do can be easily justified by the words found in Islamic literature. That is the problem. This is a mindset alien to western ideology – and that is what apologists fail to recognise and understand.
In response to Andy-Hughes who claims that the media is responsible for the poor reputation Muslims have gained. Nonsense! There are several very reputable Muslim journalists working in the popular media, but where are their reports vigorously denouncing not the terrorists – but the philosophy that undoubtedly supports those who continue to slaughter and to create mayhem worldwide? Nowhere to be found – because they are in the same boat as the rest of the peaceable Muslims - they criticise Islam at their peril! For Muslims, Islam is beyond reproach.
In response to Andy-Hughes who claims that the media is responsible for the poor reputation Muslims have gained. Nonsense! There are several very reputable Muslim journalists working in the popular media, but where are their reports vigorously denouncing not the terrorists – but the philosophy that undoubtedly supports those who continue to slaughter and to create mayhem worldwide? Nowhere to be found – because they are in the same boat as the rest of the peaceable Muslims - they criticise Islam at their peril! For Muslims, Islam is beyond reproach.
Dear razza,
Thank you for pointing out an error in my post and you were correct to do so.
I said: "This century British forces have killed more innocent muslims than vice versa". I regret using it as a way of expressing my real meaning.
What I meant should have read: "We British, using our agents, the armed forces, have killed more innocent muslims than lunatic terrorists have killed British innocents".
This has not been deliberate but the result of misguided rockets or shells. It's a story that has sadly arisen from our ill-thought-out interventions in the middle east this century: "oops hit a school or hospital, sorry but we meant well, it's just that our "smart" weapons aren't that "smart" as we thought.
I am a loyal British citizen and we are right to fight fire with fire. I am no apologist for murderers.
But our misguided invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan plus other interferences in the internal affairs of other states have played into the hands of a lunatic minority who have brought shame on a peace-loving group: the true and faithful muslim population world-wide.
SIQ.
Thank you for pointing out an error in my post and you were correct to do so.
I said: "This century British forces have killed more innocent muslims than vice versa". I regret using it as a way of expressing my real meaning.
What I meant should have read: "We British, using our agents, the armed forces, have killed more innocent muslims than lunatic terrorists have killed British innocents".
This has not been deliberate but the result of misguided rockets or shells. It's a story that has sadly arisen from our ill-thought-out interventions in the middle east this century: "oops hit a school or hospital, sorry but we meant well, it's just that our "smart" weapons aren't that "smart" as we thought.
I am a loyal British citizen and we are right to fight fire with fire. I am no apologist for murderers.
But our misguided invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan plus other interferences in the internal affairs of other states have played into the hands of a lunatic minority who have brought shame on a peace-loving group: the true and faithful muslim population world-wide.
SIQ.
Dear Lazygun,
I said Muslims are no more untrustworthy than any other established religious group or people in general. No? Prove me wrong" Although you agree with my statement you ask if I want proof positive or negative. Well, if anyone can prove the statement wrong then let them do so either way. End of story.
Regards,
SIQ.
I said Muslims are no more untrustworthy than any other established religious group or people in general. No? Prove me wrong" Although you agree with my statement you ask if I want proof positive or negative. Well, if anyone can prove the statement wrong then let them do so either way. End of story.
Regards,
SIQ.
@ SIQ
"Although you agree with my statement you ask if I want proof positive or negative. Well, if anyone can prove the statement wrong then let them do so either way. End of story"
I did not ask if you "want proof positive" at all. I asked what kind of proof, either positive or negative that you would accept, out of curiosity.
So - what sort of proof would you accept?
"Although you agree with my statement you ask if I want proof positive or negative. Well, if anyone can prove the statement wrong then let them do so either way. End of story"
I did not ask if you "want proof positive" at all. I asked what kind of proof, either positive or negative that you would accept, out of curiosity.
So - what sort of proof would you accept?
I entered this debate for two reasons.
First the Daily Mail's selective headline and subheadline were inconsistent with their "summary" of findings. Notably the lack of explanation of what "trusted" meant. Remember signicant other groups were not trusted - mistrusted of what and why is not explained. No thanks, I'm not wading through sheets and tables to prove or disprove the survey's legitimacy or raison d'etre. Life's experiences have tought me to take surveys with a pinch of salt, usually being carried out with a hidden motive to move opinion rather than reflect it. None can establish a fundemental truth given the massive number of variables involved even if, like the BBC, they try.
Second I was disturbed by those who leapt on this trashy article to condemn the islamic people per se.
I have no torch to carry on behalf of any religion or creed. But I do stand by our once-proud British belief in fair play. I am unimpressed by those who, under the guise of expertise, attempt to prove that muslims are in some way fundementally different than other cultures. Muslims, like us just want a peaceful life and should not be universally condemned through the acts of a bunch of murderous zealots who do not even understand their own religion.
SIQ.
First the Daily Mail's selective headline and subheadline were inconsistent with their "summary" of findings. Notably the lack of explanation of what "trusted" meant. Remember signicant other groups were not trusted - mistrusted of what and why is not explained. No thanks, I'm not wading through sheets and tables to prove or disprove the survey's legitimacy or raison d'etre. Life's experiences have tought me to take surveys with a pinch of salt, usually being carried out with a hidden motive to move opinion rather than reflect it. None can establish a fundemental truth given the massive number of variables involved even if, like the BBC, they try.
Second I was disturbed by those who leapt on this trashy article to condemn the islamic people per se.
I have no torch to carry on behalf of any religion or creed. But I do stand by our once-proud British belief in fair play. I am unimpressed by those who, under the guise of expertise, attempt to prove that muslims are in some way fundementally different than other cultures. Muslims, like us just want a peaceful life and should not be universally condemned through the acts of a bunch of murderous zealots who do not even understand their own religion.
SIQ.
Dear LazyGun,
Aaaw just when I was about to log-off and give ABers and me a rest.
Regarding my: "Muslims are no more untrustworthy than any other established religious group or people in general. No? Prove me wrong."
If anyone takes a negative view that muslims are less trustworthy then let them scientifically prove it to the overwheming satifaction of the majority of unbiased people and publish their methodology so that their conclusion is repeatable.
Mine is the positive view in the statement itself which I hold as a
self-evident truth until proven wrong. It is actually is in fact supported by the survey in question where only a minority mistrusted muslims but I cannot cite that as proof as I have not verified its methodology nor has anyone repeated it.
I repeat my quotes as I get tired of contributors who jump in without reading the whole debate.
If you want to discuss how many angels can dance on top of the head of a pin, please don't contact me (lol).
Kindest regards,
SIQ.
Aaaw just when I was about to log-off and give ABers and me a rest.
Regarding my: "Muslims are no more untrustworthy than any other established religious group or people in general. No? Prove me wrong."
If anyone takes a negative view that muslims are less trustworthy then let them scientifically prove it to the overwheming satifaction of the majority of unbiased people and publish their methodology so that their conclusion is repeatable.
Mine is the positive view in the statement itself which I hold as a
self-evident truth until proven wrong. It is actually is in fact supported by the survey in question where only a minority mistrusted muslims but I cannot cite that as proof as I have not verified its methodology nor has anyone repeated it.
I repeat my quotes as I get tired of contributors who jump in without reading the whole debate.
If you want to discuss how many angels can dance on top of the head of a pin, please don't contact me (lol).
Kindest regards,
SIQ.
@ SIQ Err OK. Fact is though, that the survey asked about trust/mistrust of a wide range of different groups within the diverse sectors of humanity that make up the UKs population, from a broad selection of people drawn and identified by those self-same sections. Each of those responding will have a different measure of what constitutes trust, or mistrust; But what constitutes trust is neither here nor there in the context of the results of the survey - fact is that, relative to other groups, muslims fared badly in comparison to those other groups, according to the selected survey group.
. I happen to agree with you in a way - muslims as a whole are being ill-served by all the negative publicity right now, but that's why surveys like this are both important and potentially useful.
And again - Rather than just assert something, as you do here
"First the Daily Mail's selective headline and subheadline were inconsistent with their "summary" of findings."
How about show the example? How and why was it either selective or inconsistent? It was selective in the sense that it focused on Muslims, that I will accept - but since it was that group that fared particularly badly on the trust/mistrust issue and some other related questions, hardly surprising. How was either the headline or the subheadlines inconsistent with their summary of findings though? You have not explained that assertion, that I can see.
I would also be grateful if you could point out what ulterior motive might have informed this survey or the questions, or indeed, which group might have been the focus of the hidden motive?
Its all very well decrying surveys, claiming they are meaningless - for many pop surveys that's very probably true, but when a survey like this is carried out it deserves some serious consideration, not just instant dismissal.
And finally, to get back to your original comment of yours - in that, you asked this question
"I said Muslims are no more untrustworthy than any other established religious group or people in general. No? Prove me wrong""
I have asked you what kind of proof you would consider valid, either positive or negative, out of my curiosity. You still have not answered...unless that was just some kind of rhetorical device not meant to be taken seriously, you must have some notion of what kind of proof would be required surely?
. I happen to agree with you in a way - muslims as a whole are being ill-served by all the negative publicity right now, but that's why surveys like this are both important and potentially useful.
And again - Rather than just assert something, as you do here
"First the Daily Mail's selective headline and subheadline were inconsistent with their "summary" of findings."
How about show the example? How and why was it either selective or inconsistent? It was selective in the sense that it focused on Muslims, that I will accept - but since it was that group that fared particularly badly on the trust/mistrust issue and some other related questions, hardly surprising. How was either the headline or the subheadlines inconsistent with their summary of findings though? You have not explained that assertion, that I can see.
I would also be grateful if you could point out what ulterior motive might have informed this survey or the questions, or indeed, which group might have been the focus of the hidden motive?
Its all very well decrying surveys, claiming they are meaningless - for many pop surveys that's very probably true, but when a survey like this is carried out it deserves some serious consideration, not just instant dismissal.
And finally, to get back to your original comment of yours - in that, you asked this question
"I said Muslims are no more untrustworthy than any other established religious group or people in general. No? Prove me wrong""
I have asked you what kind of proof you would consider valid, either positive or negative, out of my curiosity. You still have not answered...unless that was just some kind of rhetorical device not meant to be taken seriously, you must have some notion of what kind of proof would be required surely?
Dear LazyGun,
OK LG. The Mail HEADLINE was: "More than a quarter of young adults in Britain 'do not trust muslims' because of terror attacks". They repeat this in the SUBHEADER (can't we read the main headline?).
In their "SUMMARY" the reason for their mistrust does not mention terrorism.
In fact if you add in the other groups, 83% don't trust anyone and that excludes others not cited in the survey such as mormons, jehovah's witnesses etc! So maybe the muslims did't do so bad after all!
No, I did not state that this particular survey had an ulterior motive. I was referring to certain surveys in my general criticism of surveys.
You're right about the "prove it" being just part of my rhetoric and I did not set it as a challenge. But even then I've tried to answer your chalenge as best I can - can we please drop it now as I've done my best to answer your challenge.
Hope I've addressed your points and have no wish that you and I hi-jack this topic. In fact I'm talked out...I think.
Can't we agree to disagree. In fact I hope we have shown each other mutal respect.
With Kind Regards.
SIQ.
OK LG. The Mail HEADLINE was: "More than a quarter of young adults in Britain 'do not trust muslims' because of terror attacks". They repeat this in the SUBHEADER (can't we read the main headline?).
In their "SUMMARY" the reason for their mistrust does not mention terrorism.
In fact if you add in the other groups, 83% don't trust anyone and that excludes others not cited in the survey such as mormons, jehovah's witnesses etc! So maybe the muslims did't do so bad after all!
No, I did not state that this particular survey had an ulterior motive. I was referring to certain surveys in my general criticism of surveys.
You're right about the "prove it" being just part of my rhetoric and I did not set it as a challenge. But even then I've tried to answer your chalenge as best I can - can we please drop it now as I've done my best to answer your challenge.
Hope I've addressed your points and have no wish that you and I hi-jack this topic. In fact I'm talked out...I think.
Can't we agree to disagree. In fact I hope we have shown each other mutal respect.
With Kind Regards.
SIQ.
"...fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,..."
I only recently discovered that the following comes not from Shylock's speech (where some strange conflation in my mind had placed it), but from Richard II:
“I live with bread like you, feel want,
Taste grief, need friends: subjected thus,
How can you say to me, I am a [fill in as appropriate]?".
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,..."
I only recently discovered that the following comes not from Shylock's speech (where some strange conflation in my mind had placed it), but from Richard II:
“I live with bread like you, feel want,
Taste grief, need friends: subjected thus,
How can you say to me, I am a [fill in as appropriate]?".
Ukanonymous, how appropriate that explicit support for Naomi's persistent dogmatic and wrong-headed posts should come from a dope like you! Your only contribution had been to say that all terrorists are muslims. When pulled up by sandyRoe, you changed your "statistics" from 100% to 99%. A pity that you could not express any other views and have to rely on Naomi's "posh" style to say what you believe!
SIQ.
SIQ.
Naomi24,
Apart from your regular earlier bald statements about muslims, you really "excel" yourself in your last effort.
You "teach" us unthinking masses: "Understand that muslims, wherever they are born, consider themselves to be brothers (and sisters) and deem.....etc"
Oh yeah? Ever heard that Shiah and Sunni muslims hate each other? Have you not noticed that the killings across the middle-east now and far back (Iraq v Iranian war) consist of muslims killing each other. Some brothers, some sisters!
You "teach" us "the islamic mindset is alien to western ideology - and that is what apologists fail to recognise and understand".
I presume we can conveniently dismiss, amongst others, the Nazi German Rule of Terror and US Vietnam attrocities from the "western mindset".
And now, of all places! - this debate partly involving the Daily Mail's distortion on a BBC Survey - to choose to describe Andy-Hughes correct criticism of the media's malign influence as "rubbish" is an insult far in excess of your normal arrogance.
SIQ.
Apart from your regular earlier bald statements about muslims, you really "excel" yourself in your last effort.
You "teach" us unthinking masses: "Understand that muslims, wherever they are born, consider themselves to be brothers (and sisters) and deem.....etc"
Oh yeah? Ever heard that Shiah and Sunni muslims hate each other? Have you not noticed that the killings across the middle-east now and far back (Iraq v Iranian war) consist of muslims killing each other. Some brothers, some sisters!
You "teach" us "the islamic mindset is alien to western ideology - and that is what apologists fail to recognise and understand".
I presume we can conveniently dismiss, amongst others, the Nazi German Rule of Terror and US Vietnam attrocities from the "western mindset".
And now, of all places! - this debate partly involving the Daily Mail's distortion on a BBC Survey - to choose to describe Andy-Hughes correct criticism of the media's malign influence as "rubbish" is an insult far in excess of your normal arrogance.
SIQ.
