Germany: Migrant Sex Crimes Double in One Year

Started by Emperordmb3 pages

Beni at least posts some quippy statement before hurling the smileys.

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
🙄 ❌

?

No, that he's a bigot?

Because he seems to be anything but.. The points he brings up seem well reasoned and well researched, while his opponents generally bring up racism against blacks or Nazi like discrimiation against jews in response, ignoring his arguments entirely..

Originally posted by cdtm
Isn't Sam Harris also routinely accused of being an anti-muslim bigot?

Not saying that site might not have a conflict of interest/clear bias, but slandering opposition with a bigotry/slander label has become so routine as to be rendered virtually meaningless..


That's a good point tbh.

Originally posted by cdtm
?

No, that he's a bigot?

Because he seems to be anything but.. The points he brings up seem well reasoned and well researched, while his opponents generally bring up racism against blacks or Nazi like discrimiation against jews in response, ignoring his arguments entirely..

🙄 ❌

Nothing to do with your deflection.

A neoconservative far-right think tank notorious for its Islamophobia is not a reliable source.

Why don't you look at the German govt statistics and prove the source wrong then? If your convinced this is fake news surely it would be easy to look up the report and disprove it instead of just dismissing it.

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
A neoconservative far-right think tank notorious for its Islamophobia is not a reliable source.

Islamophobic according to whom? PC preachers? That's not convincing at all. 👆

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Why don't you look at the German govt statistics and prove the source wrong then? If your convinced this is fake news surely it would be easy to look up the report and disprove it instead of just dismissing it.

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
🙄 ❌

Nothing to do with your deflection.

A neoconservative far-right think tank notorious for its Islamophobia is not a reliable source.

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
🙄 ❌

Nothing to do with your deflection.

A neoconservative far-right think tank notorious for its Islamophobia is not a reliable source.

And what would you know about that? You pull up a website, and suddenly you're an authority on the subject? They're given a label, and immediately you assume it's correct, and resort to open mockery if anyone questions that label?

But thanks for clearing up the fact you have a political bias. I'll be sure to avoid seriously engaging with you in the future, sir (As I do those on the right. I have no tolerance for ideologues .)

Originally posted by Stigma
Islamophobic according to whom? PC preachers? That's not convincing at all. 👆

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
🙄 ❌

Nothing to do with your deflection.

A neoconservative far-right think tank notorious for its Islamophobia is not a reliable source.

Originally posted by cdtm
And what would you know about that? You pull up a website, and suddenly you're an authority on the subject? They're given a label, and immediately you assume it's correct, and resort to open mockery if anyone questions that label?

But thanks for clearing up the fact you have a political bias. I'll be sure to avoid seriously engaging with you in the future, sir (As I do those on the right. I have no tolerance for ideologues .)

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
🙄 ❌

Nothing to do with your deflection.

A neoconservative far-right think tank notorious for its Islamophobia is not a reliable source.

Originally posted by cdtm
And what would you know about that? You pull up a website, and suddenly you're an authority on the subject? They're given a label, and immediately you assume it's correct, and resort to open mockery if anyone questions that label?

But thanks for clearing up the fact you have a political bias. I'll be sure to avoid seriously engaging with you in the future, sir (As I do those on the right. I have no tolerance for ideologues .)


👆

Steve, who gets to decide what is or is not Islamaphobia?

Who gets to decide who gets to decide what is or is not Islamaphobia?

Cuz you see I've recently seen people saying being anti shariah law is an example of Islamaphobia. That's total bullshit. It'd be one thing if those who labeled it such tried to hide behind the "well they are using being against shariah to hide behind hating muslims!", but it's not. I've seen folk, full stop, just saying if you're anti shariah you are anti-Islam.

Are you pro Shariah law, Steven?

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
🙄 ❌

Nothing to do with your deflection.

A neoconservative far-right think tank notorious for its Islamophobia is not a reliable source.

Originally posted by Surtur
Steve, who gets to decide what is or is not Islamaphobia?

Who gets to decide who gets to decide what is or is not Islamaphobia?

Cuz you see I've recently seen people saying being anti shariah law is an example of Islamaphobia. That's total bullshit. It'd be one thing if those who labeled it such tried to hide behind the "well they are using being against shariah to hide behind hating muslims!", but it's not. I've seen folk, full stop, just saying if you're anti shariah you are anti-Islam.

Are you pro Shariah law, Steven?

Surtur do you even know what Shariah law is?

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac

then disprove it

Originally posted by Emperordmb
then disprove it
No need, it's unproven and possibly fake news until backed by a credible source.

The article cites statistics from the German Government, so I'd say it's backed by a credible source.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
The article cites statistics from the German Government, so I'd say it's backed by a credible source.
Prove they are backed by the German Government.

Is this source more to your liking?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4605624/Sex-crimes-migrants-soar-Germany.html

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Is this source more to your liking?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4605624/Sex-crimes-migrants-soar-Germany.html
No, Wikipedia won't allow the Daily Mail as a reliable source, it makes stuff up and links to documents which do not say what it says they say. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website