Islam: Is it inherently Evil?

[Value Collector]

I don't believe that the misguided people who believe the above principles are evil.

Neither do I, I made a point of saying I was talking about the religion, not the members.

The title to the thread asks is Islam evil, not are the members of the Islamic faith evil. In my comment I simply stated all religion I know of are evil, I also gave the definition of evil I was using, eg immoral or wicked.

I believe most members of religions are victims of crime,they are only members because they have been lied to, and we shouldn't blame the victims of crime.

 

[DeepState]

So 65%, or the majority, of criminals in Italy are not Muslims. The non-Muslim population are majorily criminal as represented by that stat..

That is a seriously absurd twist of what was written. It is statistically anomalous and totally meaningless unless intended to, say, obfuscate.

To do the 2% population but 35% criminal interpretation you must be a bit thoughtful than that. For example, of the 2% Muslims, how many are from broken homes, how many have no education or job prospects, how many fits the profile of a typical criminal - say, from poor background, tend to be discriminated against, little education to speak of... then, what kind of crimes were they charged with. Murder, White collar crimes, or your typical bag snatching and minor misdemeanors.

I'm not excusing crimes... the law is what is it and we all ought to live within it or else be punished as stated. But to make that leap from that stat and conclude that most Muslims are criminals, and imply that they committed crimes because of their faith. That is absurd and cannot be taken seriously.

The background rate of incarceration for a Muslim in Italy is 5%. Well above the national average.

The same stat for the US is 6.4%. The national average is 1%.

African Americans, who suffer from poverty, busted families en masse, lack of prospects, lack of education (Muslims have a much higher proportion of college grads than African Americans)...have a MALE ONLY incarceration rate of 4.3%. It would be much lower if the women were included.

Given very few African Americans are Muslim, proportionately, and education is a predictor of opportunities, health etc... you have a two sample control which is adequate for purpose. It points to Muslims being incarcerated a lot more than the general population as a proportion. Muslims are also more integrated in the US and met with greater tolerance than in many other places.

Offsetting this a bit is the fact that the Muslim age profile is more conducive to crime than the African American population. A bit.

The figures are for currently in incarceration. If you'd like to parse that down to view the perspective that African Americans undertake a much higher proportion of murders than Muslims who are primarily bag snatchers etc...I welcome the illumination.

Feel free to check stats (ie. facts) for just about any country with a meaningful proportion of Muslims entering a western democracy. This might include Australia, just for example. Same direction. A meta-analysis would be obvious enough in developing a perspective.

Ultimately, the statement related to criminality to the point of incarceration. Major stuff. I am reasonably sure that bag snatching is not a significant sub-population behind bars. Same with minor misdemeanors. If you judge theft of life savings to be less odorous than dealing drugs, that's your perspective.

The study can be taken seriously and is hardly absurd. Muslims are greatly over-represented in the prison system given the population from which criminality to the point of incarceration is drawn. You'd have to find some hithertofore unknown correlate to being Muslim that doesn't involve actually being Muslim to bring the observations towards the direction of your deflections, whatever these are.


For the viewers: I do not believe that being Muslim condemns a person to lead a criminal life. The above are observations/data. However, I feel they have more than passing interest.

 

[herzy]

That is a seriously absurd twist of what was written. It is statistically anomalous and totally meaningless unless intended to, say, obfuscate.



The background rate of incarceration for a Muslim in Italy is 5%. Well above the national average.

The same stat for the US is 6.4%. The national average is 1%.

African Americans, who suffer from poverty, busted families en masse, lack of prospects, lack of education (Muslims have a much higher proportion of college grads than African Americans)...have a MALE ONLY incarceration rate of 4.3%. It would be much lower if the women were included.

Given very few African Americans are Muslim, proportionately, and education is a predictor of opportunities, health etc... you have a two sample control which is adequate for purpose. It points to Muslims being incarcerated a lot more than the general population as a proportion. Muslims are also more integrated in the US and met with greater tolerance than in many other places.

Offsetting this a bit is the fact that the Muslim age profile is more conducive to crime than the African American population. A bit.

The figures are for currently in incarceration. If you'd like to parse that down to view the perspective that African Americans undertake a much higher proportion of murders than Muslims who are primarily bag snatchers etc...I welcome the illumination.

Feel free to check stats (ie. facts) for just about any country with a meaningful proportion of Muslims entering a western democracy. This might include Australia, just for example. Same direction. A meta-analysis would be obvious enough in developing a perspective.

Ultimately, the statement related to criminality to the point of incarceration. Major stuff. I am reasonably sure that bag snatching is not a significant sub-population behind bars. Same with minor misdemeanors. If you judge theft of life savings to be less odorous than dealing drugs, that's your perspective.

The study can be taken seriously and is hardly absurd. Muslims are greatly over-represented in the prison system given the population from which criminality to the point of incarceration is drawn. You'd have to find some hithertofore unknown correlate to being Muslim that doesn't involve actually being Muslim to bring the observations towards the direction of your deflections, whatever these are.


For the viewers: I do not believe that being Muslim condemns a person to lead a criminal life. The above are observations/data. However, I feel they have more than passing interest.

A few faulty premises in there.

You shouldn't compare African Americans to Muslims. African Americans are well-established in America. Most Muslims in the US are first or second generation immigrants. That's entirely different, and it takes a while for cultures to assimilate (e.g. Italian gangsters).

On Italy, again, it's not particularly fair to look purely at the statistics. Almost all Muslims in Europe are (perhaps illegal) economic migrants, largely from the Magreb/northern or francophone Africa. Almost none of them are born in the countries where they are now. Almost all crime is done by these economic immigrants, most of which do happen to be Muslim - or gypsies.

I can spell that out in terms of different SES, access to education, access to jobs, etc but I don't think I need to.

Weatsop, amazing post. Probably the best and most accurate concise summary / overview of Islam I've read.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I watched QANDA the other night and was impressed by Sen. Brandis.

I was equally impressed by many of the audience.

I did get the feeling though that it was an us and them attitude, from the audience, more than from Brandis.

I would like Islamists to lighten up and merge in more with the rest of Australia, as all other migrant groups have. Perhaps they will.

I hope so.

gg

 

[noco]

I watched QANDA the other night and was impressed by Sen. Brandis.

I was equally impressed by many of the audience.

I did get the feeling though that it was an us and them attitude, from the audience, more than from Brandis.

I would like Islamists to lighten up and merge in more with the rest of Australia, as all other migrant groups have. Perhaps they will.

I hope so.

gg

GG, don't build your hopes up.......Islam have a set agenda and that is world domination.

If its happens here like it has in the middle east you will be given two choices.......1) convert to Islam....2) be eliminated.

 

[luutzu]

That is a seriously absurd twist of what was written. It is statistically anomalous and totally meaningless unless intended to, say, obfuscate.


The background rate of incarceration for a Muslim in Italy is 5%. Well above the national average.

The same stat for the US is 6.4%. The national average is 1%.

African Americans, who suffer from poverty, busted families en masse, lack of prospects, lack of education (Muslims have a much higher proportion of college grads than African Americans)...have a MALE ONLY incarceration rate of 4.3%. It would be much lower if the women were included.

Given very few African Americans are Muslim, proportionately, and education is a predictor of opportunities, health etc... you have a two sample control which is adequate for purpose. It points to Muslims being incarcerated a lot more than the general population as a proportion. Muslims are also more integrated in the US and met with greater tolerance than in many other places.

Offsetting this a bit is the fact that the Muslim age profile is more conducive to crime than the African American population. A bit.

The figures are for currently in incarceration. If you'd like to parse that down to view the perspective that African Americans undertake a much higher proportion of murders than Muslims who are primarily bag snatchers etc...I welcome the illumination.

Feel free to check stats (ie. facts) for just about any country with a meaningful proportion of Muslims entering a western democracy. This might include Australia, just for example. Same direction. A meta-analysis would be obvious enough in developing a perspective.

Ultimately, the statement related to criminality to the point of incarceration. Major stuff. I am reasonably sure that bag snatching is not a significant sub-population behind bars. Same with minor misdemeanors. If you judge theft of life savings to be less odorous than dealing drugs, that's your perspective.

The study can be taken seriously and is hardly absurd. Muslims are greatly over-represented in the prison system given the population from which criminality to the point of incarceration is drawn. You'd have to find some hithertofore unknown correlate to being Muslim that doesn't involve actually being Muslim to bring the observations towards the direction of your deflections, whatever these are.


For the viewers: I do not believe that being Muslim condemns a person to lead a criminal life. The above are observations/data. However, I feel they have more than passing interest.

Like I said, more thought is needed for such absurd conclusion. And RY did not fail to deliver.

If 35% of prisoners are Muslims, it mean 65% must be non-Muslims. Therefore, the majority of criminals are not Muslim. It's statistics, if you can twist it one way, why can't I twist it another? Is yours more logical?

So your logic is that if Muslims, or any group we wish to look at, if they made up 1% of the population they must make up 1% of whatever it is we look at. Else they're either over or under achievers, and whether that's good or bad depends on whether that's favourable or not to us. Either way it is all due to their religion or genetics or something about them ethnically.

OK.

Let apply that to something else.

James Packer... he's 1 of 22 million (give or take) Australians... how come his wealth is not anywhere near 1 in 22 millions of all combined Australians wealth? Maybe he's that many times smarter than the average Aussie; maybe he was born into it; maybe he's just a nice bloke and we all gave him a bit or two.

See how those "maybes" got nothing to do with the 1/22million ratio?

If you judge theft of life savings to be less odorous than dealing drugs...

I think the US Justice department judge it as such. I heard that there's only 1, one, criminal conviction from the GFC. And that's only because the guy was scared and confessed.

I think some 20 trillion, that's TRILLION... could be a couple trillion, but there's trillions in what I heard that was lost due to the GFC. You know, bankers and investment managers not doing their job; more than a handful of clearly fraudulent banking practices... and out of all that lost, we got ourselves one criminal.

I mean i know drugs are bad for you and we should just say no, but worse than losing a trillion or two? You'd think when a group of people somehow lose a trillion or two and almost bring the world economy to an end, you could charge them with something... maybe economic terrorism or something.


Oh yea, table below show 74% inmates are Christians. Those Christians, they're just full of criminals aren't they?

 

[luutzu]

I'll write a big post that everyone will ignore!.

I got into emergency management, and later pandemic planning, via my early career of counter-terrorism (later they took my lack of academic qualifications in pandemic control against my prior interest in bio-terror). If you think I'm boasting, you have no idea how hard it is to get a job in ***anything other than that***.

And also, if anyone knows of ANY job in the ACT area, I'll take it. Seriously. If you want to test the effects of electrodes on testicle and pay a decent wage, I'm there...

...anyway:

Islam is at war.

On one side, the vast majority who have been taught that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the great jihad is the internal one, where you strive to become something better.

On the other side we have two forces: the first, a tiny minority (less than a million, vs a THOUSAND million) who want to call Islam "the religion of war". Allied to those - but, seriously, having no idea they're on the same side as the terrorists - all those people who also say Islam is a religion of war, not peace. Lots of newspaper and radio commentators come to mind.

The Koran clearly states that Muslims are NOT allowed to fight people who don't want to fight. Even if they know the other side is asking for a peace treaty just so they can gather more forces for another war, the Koran forbids Muslims to fight.

It cannot be stressed more: the terrorists are not Muslims. They say they are, but they say a LOT of idiotic ****.

They are trying, as hard as they can, to convince the world - and especially Muslims - that they represent what Islam is supposed to be. That is, in essence, what this whole war is about. These guys are trying to take over Islam.

So far they are failing.

And this is the most important bit:

For every non-Muslim these terrorists have killed, they have killed 10 Muslims.

In Saudi Arabia, there is a dictatorship that enforces this really messed up (and recent) cult of "Wahhabism". Look it up. I'll wait.

Wahhabi terrorists have been a scourge in the 100-odd years they've existed. If you doubt, have a good hard look at what life is like in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). We don't discuss it in the same way we discuss the almost-as-bad North Korea because, simply, they have a lot of oil in the KSA.

THAT is what's messed up in Islam. Wahhabis are what we should call the terrorists. Not Muslim, not even Sunni. They're Wahhabis.

Sure, there are red-neck country-folk hill tribes in Afghanistan and Pakistan and some other places who (like almost all inbred hill-folk everywhere) treat their women like crap, and kill anyone who'd different. It's like an ancient Chinese riddle with no answer: what stops Pashtuns from killing you, if you're not Pashtun? There's a reason Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. The Pashtun national sport is "killing everyone else".

Look hard enough and you'll see how hard Pakistan tries to direct their own Pashtuns against anyone but them. Note well: the Pakistani Taliban are completely different to the Afghan Taliban. Seriously, go look that up! Don't trust me. But see: different people, different enemies, different objectives.

And Pakistan managed to convince America (in a deal to let them attack Afghan Taliban in the provinces, and/pr a deal to let them take out Bin Laden) to hit the Pakistani Taliban - and now the local Pashtun have a sudden hardon for killing Yanks. Hurray for diplomacy!

But even the Pashtun kill mostly twelver shiites. You think they kill a lot of Americans? Look at their kills on the poor bloody Hazara compared with their kills on Yanks. And half the Hazara dead are kids...

So you've got Islam.

One part is Shiite (if you like, think of these as Catholics).

On the other side is Sunni (Protestant).

Part of the Sunnism is Wahhabism (think of them as the old Puritan "cold is god's way of telling us to burn more Catholics" version of Protestants)

So, recent example: the Wahhabis from Libya had lots of good weapons from the fall of Gaddafi. They go down to "help" their Sunni friends in Mali. Now the Malian Sunnis are a famous military tribe, the Taurags. ****ing badass. Those light-cavalry troops that always show up as the villain in Foreign Legion or other desert-north-Africa movies? Taurags.

Only with Tauregs, the MEN go veiled (the blue veils and turbans, so famous in the old movies), and the women go uncovered and own the property. Because religion, surprise surprise, is all about interpretation. It's culture, with validation.

(Note well: the Koran doesn't actually tell ANYONE to go veiled. Most "Muslim" dress is actually "Saudi" dress. But they're rich, so culture travels).

So these Wahhabis show up with their technicals and captured RPGs and roll the top half of Mali.

Now the short story is that the French step up (and anyone who doubts the courage of the French aren't paying attention) and flatten the idiots. But the detail shows the Tauregs were just about to kill the bastards themselves. Had actually already started.

Young Taureg women are encouraged to try the field a bit before they settle down. The Saudi Wahhabis went NUTS. There are hilarious Wahhabi letters expressing bafflement that the standard Saudi punishments against male-female fraternisation were not well received by the locals.

Here's a great write-up: https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/jihadi-middle-manager/


And those guys are fellow SUNNIS.

The Shiites ****ing hate them.

Most of the Muslims refugees we get in Australia are Shiites. They are our allies against the terrorists.

That's what annoys me about our own hostility to Muslims. If we'd called it "Wahhabi" from the start, at least we'd have some perspective.

Instead we reinforce the terrorists' own point of view: that all Islam is Wahhabi. THOSE are the guys who want Sharia!

It'd be like pretending all Catholics should be IRA.

STOP LISTENING TO THEM. Look! Use your eyes! here are thousands of Muslims killed by the Wahhabis, and a few of us (by comparison...) and WE HATE ALL MUSLIMS! No!!!!! Most Muslims are on OUR SIDE!!!!

Good post, learn a thing or two today. And I didn't say that because I don't doubt your skills with electrodes.

 

[DeepState]

Like I said, more thought is needed for such absurd conclusion. And RY did not fail to deliver.

If 35% of prisoners are Muslims, it mean 65% must be non-Muslims. Therefore, the majority of criminals are not Muslim. It's statistics, if you can twist it one way, why can't I twist it another? Is yours more logical?

So your logic is that if Muslims, or any group we wish to look at, if they made up 1% of the population they must make up 1% of whatever it is we look at. Else they're either over or under achievers, and whether that's good or bad depends on whether that's favourable or not to us. Either way it is all due to their religion or genetics or something about them ethnically.

OK.

Let apply that to something else.

James Packer... he's 1 of 22 million (give or take) Australians... how come his wealth is not anywhere near 1 in 22 millions of all combined Australians wealth? Maybe he's that many times smarter than the average Aussie; maybe he was born into it; maybe he's just a nice bloke and we all gave him a bit or two.

See how those "maybes" got nothing to do with the 1/22million ratio?



I think the US Justice department judge it as such. I heard that there's only 1, one, criminal conviction from the GFC. And that's only because the guy was scared and confessed.

I think some 20 trillion, that's TRILLION... could be a couple trillion, but there's trillions in what I heard that was lost due to the GFC. You know, bankers and investment managers not doing their job; more than a handful of clearly fraudulent banking practices... and out of all that lost, we got ourselves one criminal.

I mean i know drugs are bad for you and we should just say no, but worse than losing a trillion or two? You'd think when a group of people somehow lose a trillion or two and almost bring the world economy to an end, you could charge them with something... maybe economic terrorism or something.


Oh yea, table below show 74% inmates are Christians. Those Christians, they're just full of criminals aren't they?


View attachment 60150

If James Packer's wealth is vastly above the average wealth of the average person...that would make him seriously rich. That's not normal. It is still a relatively small proportion of the nation's wealth, but I would classify him as filthy rich. That's different to the humdrum, whose assets in aggregate vastly exceed his. He is different.

If a group of 1m (Exhibit A) of 100m population commits 10k crimes and the other 99m (Exhibit B) of 100m population commits 10k crimes, that would make population A very criminally prone. Yet you would equate the fact that crimes committed by A and B being equal to 10k a piece to mean that there is equal crime committed by A and B. Correct. However this debate is all about criminality...as opposed to crimes committed. This is a point you seem to have overlooked. Number of crimes committed is completely useless for the subject to hand. To make it useful, you need additional information. There is no twisting required on my part. A is criminally prone.

This is about whether Muslims are more criminally prone. If they are or not, depending on their relative population, they may make up the smaller or larger portion of total criminality. As a result, the use of absolute numbers of incarceration are quite irrelevant.

When a sub-population commits a lot more crime proportionally to the wider populace, something is going on. For this kind of situation, absolute figures matter much less than proportions.

 

[luutzu]

If James Packer's wealth is vastly above the average wealth of the average person...that would make him seriously rich. That's not normal. It is still a relatively small proportion of the nation's wealth, but I would classify him as filthy rich. That's different to the humdrum, whose assets in aggregate vastly exceed his. He is different.

If a group of 1m (Exhibit A) of 100m population commits 10k crimes and the other 99m (Exhibit B) of 100m population commits 10k crimes, that would make population A very criminally prone. Yet you would equate the fact that crimes committed by A and B being equal to 10k a piece to mean that there is equal crime committed by A and B. Correct. However this debate is all about criminality...as opposed to crimes committed. This is a point you seem to have overlooked. Number of crimes committed is completely useless for the subject to hand. To make it useful, you need additional information. There is no twisting required on my part. A is criminally prone.

This is about whether Muslims are more criminally prone. If they are or not, depending on their relative population, they may make up the smaller or larger portion of total criminality. As a result, the use of absolute numbers of incarceration are quite irrelevant.

When a sub-population commits a lot more crime proportionally to the wider populace, something is going on. For this kind of situation, absolute figures matter much less than proportions.

From Wikipedia: roughly 48% of Americans are Protestants, 22% are Catholics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

From that table above, 39% of inmates are Catholics while 35% are Protestant.
So Catholics are more inclined to a life of crime then? More than Protestant apparently.

I thought it was taught at uni that correlation does not equal causation. No?

What make you certain that those Muslims in prison are in prison because of their religion? Maybe they are in prison because they enjoy crime (and also attend Mosques); maybe in because they can't afford a good lawyer (and attend Mosques); maybe they're ill-adjusted youth recently migrated to the US with no parents or parents too busy to make ends meet to see what companies their kids keep (and they attend Mosques)...

When I was at school, your kind of logic really help me against bullies though: I'm Asian, all Asians know Kung Fu like Bruce Lee, therefore I must know Kung Fu and it's best not to mess with me.

 

[DeepState]

A few faulty premises in there.

1. You shouldn't compare African Americans to Muslims. African Americans are well-established in America. Most Muslims in the US are first or second generation immigrants. That's entirely different, and it takes a while for cultures to assimilate (e.g. Italian gangsters).

2. On Italy, again, it's not particularly fair to look purely at the statistics. Almost all Muslims in Europe are (perhaps illegal) economic migrants, largely from the Magreb/northern or francophone Africa. Almost none of them are born in the countries where they are now. Almost all crime is done by these economic immigrants, most of which do happen to be Muslim - or gypsies.

1. In the United States, crime by immigrants is lower than for non-immigrants. This strengthens the argument put forward previously.

2. I have no basis to run a control in Italy. However, it does seem reasonable that poverty relates to crime. But then, what of the gap between observation and the regressed estimate? Do you really think the difference in criminality could be anywhere near being explained by the factors you imagine? That is an enormous gap. It is made even more so by the fact that this is incarceration level crime, not petty theft from a hapless tourist.

If gypsies are highly criminal, it still plays to the point that Muslims show higher criminality. We have yet to sort out causality. Does being a thieving Gypsie cause one to become Muslim? Does being Muslim cause one to become a thieving Gypsie? Given crime levels amongst Muslims in other parts of the world exceed that of the general populace, it is hard to pin the gap on the presence of Gypsies. I am willing to concede that it plays a role in the specific Italian data. I do not concede that it reverses the observation that the Muslim population experiences a high level of criminality in general.

Perhaps the Muslim world has been economically unsuccessful. This ultimately translates to crime. The reverse also holds true, but the flow of that argument is much weaker for the subject to hand.

No-one would argue that African Americans are exactly advantaged. It has not been argued that Muslims are particularly destitute when they have better education and fare better on a range of different measures. Thus a range of economic factors can be set aside as matters to amerliorate the gap. Their inclusion strengthens the Muslim factor as an explanatory variable.

One thing which might make this all go away is the belief that the categorisations are spuriously selected. That is, Muslim and African American are just random concepts that have no real meaning but happen to produce meaningful stats. Could be. Seriously doubt it.

 

[DeepState]

From Wikipedia: roughly 48% of Americans are Protestants, 22% are Catholics

From that table above, 39% of inmates are Catholics while 35% are Protestant.
So Catholics are more inclined to a life of crime then? More than Protestant apparently.

I thought it was taught at uni that correlation does not equal causation. No?

Catholics have a higher rate of criminality than do Protestants. Neither of them are anywhere near the level of criminality of the Muslim population.

Correlation does not equal causation. Nonetheless correlation is generally indicated when causality exists. Correlation is strongly present. It does not mean that causality is conclusively proven. At this point we make the observation that the criminality within the Muslim population exceeds population averages and does so after allowing for standard considerations like income, demographics, family situations... which largely ameliorate many opening concerns and leave the Muslim identity as strongly significant.

What make you certain that those Muslims in prison are in prison because of their religion? Maybe they are in prison because they enjoy crime (and also attend Mosques); maybe in because they can't afford a good lawyer (and attend Mosques); maybe they're ill-adjusted youth recently migrated to the US with no parents or parents too busy to make ends meet to see what companies their kids keep (and they attend Mosques)...

When I was at school, your kind of logic really help me against bullies though: I'm Asian, all Asians know Kung Fu like Bruce Lee, therefore I must know Kung Fu and it's best not to mess with me.

Perhaps Muslims do enjoy crime. That would provide causality in relation to Muslims and criminality. Other factors you have raised can be controlled for by comparison to the African American population in the US. It is also present in other countries where strong and more generous social safety nets are available. Let's not get into welfare.

We can never be sure of causality. If certainty is the standard then perhaps we should just randomly move about because we cannot be sure that take a step will actually move us forward. We only know that it will probably do so, not certainly.

On Kung Fu, beyond about Grade 1, it was simple to know that proficiency was highly uncommon and very unlikely to have been achieved whilst under the age of 10. But then, fortunately for you, my kind of logic did not actually enter their brains. They made an error which is known as representativeness bias. That is not part of my logic, despite your inability to recognize otherwise. It is demonstrably part of the train of arguments you have presented.

 

[luutzu]

Catholics have a higher rate of criminality than do Protestants. Neither of them are anywhere near the level of criminality of the Muslim population.

Correlation does not equal causation. Nonetheless correlation is generally indicated when causality exists. Correlation is strongly present. It does not mean that causality is conclusively proven. At this point we make the observation that the criminality within the Muslim population exceeds population averages and does so after allowing for standard considerations like income, demographics, family situations... which largely ameliorate many opening concerns and leave the Muslim identity as strongly significant.




Perhaps Muslims do enjoy crime. That would provide causality in relation to Muslims and criminality. Other factors you have raised can be controlled for by comparison to the African American population in the US. It is also present in other countries where strong and more generous social safety nets are available. Let's not get into welfare.

We can never be sure of causality. If certainty is the standard then perhaps we should just randomly move about because we cannot be sure that take a step will actually move us forward. We only know that it will probably do so, not certainly.

On Kung Fu, beyond about Grade 1, it was simple to know that proficiency was highly uncommon and very unlikely to have been achieved whilst under the age of 10. But then, fortunately for you, my kind of logic did not actually enter their brains. They made an error which is known as representativeness bias. That is not part of my logic, despite your inability to recognize otherwise. It is demonstrably part of the train of arguments you have presented.

haha... Correlation does not equal causation, but if causation exists it indicates correlation, correlation therefore means causation - sometimes, definitely here when RY said so.

What have you been smoking RY?

There were a couple of HS kids that thought a little and didn't have that representative bias of yours... one tried and out of reflex I blocked then followed by two punches and that dude back right off... woah man, he knows Kung Fu. Waaataaaa!

Silly kid right? But these Muslims (and Protestants)... they commit crimes because Islam (and Luther?) made them inclined to.

Anyway... time to meditate and be as one with nature.

 

[Tisme]

.




Perhaps Muslims do enjoy crime. .

Perhaps they do..it is probably more exciting than being compelled to prayers.

The Italian lockup rate of muslims is apparently attributed to drug dealing, theft, falsifying documents and resisting arrest.

I seem to remember Italian 2nd gens were good at this, displaced by Vietnamese 2nd gens, and there is no secret about the wave of 2nd gen middle easterners going one step further and joining the 1%ers in bikies gangs, and I'm led to believe the islanders are getting in the swing of things. My prediction is the next wave will be the 2nd gen Africans.

Of course if you live in WA, you probably have the house locked up like a fortress from any number of thieves and violence.

 

[Calliope]

Perhaps they do..it is probably more exciting than being compelled to prayers.

Of course Muslims enjoy crime and they have no problems combining crime and prayers. Their well publicised depraved acts in Mosul show that they thoroughly enjoyed committing murder, rape and pillage, even to the extent of holding up severed heads to show how much they enjoyed their barbaric activities.

Deprived backgrounds? Scores of young and devout Muslims from stable backgrounds in Australia are making every effort to join them and join in the fun while it lasts. And no doubt they will take their prayer mats with them.

 

[Wysiwyg]

I seem to remember Italian 2nd gens were good at this, displaced by Vietnamese 2nd gens, and there is no secret about the wave of 2nd gen middle easterners going one step further and joining the 1%ers in bikies gangs, and I'm led to believe the islanders are getting in the swing of things. My prediction is the next wave will be the 2nd gen Africans.

Could early arrivals in Australia from Great Britain have been prone to continuing on with their chosen (or necessitated) path of crime. Ned K. is the most infamous. Though stealing money or property pales to insignificance against mutilation and mass execution style murder.

The vengeance factor is a strong motivator in people. It is inherent in some individuals and is evident in some groups. Something they carry with them for life and pass from generation to generation.

 

[luutzu]

Of course Muslims enjoy crime and they have no problems combining crime and prayers. Their well publicised depraved acts in Mosul show that they thoroughly enjoyed committing murder, rape and pillage, even to the extent of holding up severed heads to show how much they enjoyed their barbaric activities.

Deprived backgrounds? Scores of young and devout Muslims from stable backgrounds in Australia are making every effort to join them and join in the fun while it lasts. And no doubt they will take their prayer mats with them.

View attachment 60160

So what's the percentage of the Muslim population are in prison? 10%? 20%? Can't be 50% right? Say it's half. If Islam made people more inclined to crime, it's only doing a halfarse job. You would think that if something causes people to act in a certain way, that thing would cause all those who caught it to act in a certain way, all of them, not some or half or most of them.

Like ebola... if you caught it and have no medical treatment, you'd die. Hence, ebola would cause people to incline to dying.

Here, we got some criminals who also happen to be Muslims... that obviously mean Islam make criminals.

Give me the stats and I decide ey?

 

[bellenuit]

Yes, Islam is inherently evil. Why else would 500 people, presumably normal in most ways, get together and do such a horrible act. Whether the accusation was the result of a personal vendetta or not, the mob was motivated to undertake this act by a local mullah using the "authority" that he believes comes from the words of the Quran.

Dozens arrested in slaying of Pakistani couple accused of desecrating Quran

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/05/world/asia/pakistan-couple-slain/index.html

 

[herzy]

1. In the United States, crime by immigrants is lower than for non-immigrants. This strengthens the argument put forward previously.

err, no, it doesn't. It again conflates a multitude of factors. Are all immigrants created equal? No.

2. I have no basis to run a control in Italy. However, it does seem reasonable that poverty relates to crime. But then, what of the gap between observation and the regressed estimate? Do you really think the difference in criminality could be anywhere near being explained by the factors you imagine? That is an enormous gap. It is made even more so by the fact that this is incarceration level crime, not petty theft from a hapless tourist.

It could easily warp results, if almost all Muslims in Italy come from these backgrounds (hence almost all are criminals). Remember, as you said - it's proportion that matters, not total numbers. Aborigines are 10x overrepresented in Australian jails. By your logic, a) this enormous gap can't be explained by a range of societal factors and b) it's definitely thus because they believe in dreamtime.

If gypsies are highly criminal, it still plays to the point that Muslims show higher criminality. We have yet to sort out causality. Does being a thieving Gypsie cause one to become Muslim? Does being Muslim cause one to become a thieving Gypsie? Given crime levels amongst Muslims in other parts of the world exceed that of the general populace, it is hard to pin the gap on the presence of Gypsies. I am willing to concede that it plays a role in the specific Italian data. I do not concede that it reverses the observation that the Muslim population experiences a high level of criminality in general.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm disagreeing with any inferences drawn from that that relate to Islam. Yes, Muslims are overrepresented in jail populations, and hence display higher criminality than others, at least in the US and Italy. That's about the only conclusion one can draw, and nobody is denying that.

No-one would argue that African Americans are exactly advantaged. It has not been argued that Muslims are particularly destitute when they have better education and fare better on a range of different measures. Thus a range of economic factors can be set aside as matters to amerliorate the gap. Their inclusion strengthens the Muslim factor as an explanatory variable.

How exactly did you strengthen your argument that Islam is an explanatory variable? Almost all North Africans are Muslim, and are hence susceptible to the destitution, lack of education, and range of economic factors that create the gap which you referred to. Nothing necessarily to do with Islam, despite almost all of Italy's immigrants coming from there.

Luutzu sums it up well.

haha... Correlation does not equal causation, but if causation exists it indicates correlation, correlation therefore means causation - sometimes, definitely here when RY said so.

What have you been smoking RY?

There were a couple of HS kids that thought a little and didn't have that representative bias of yours... one tried and out of reflex I blocked then followed by two punches and that dude back right off... woah man, he knows Kung Fu. Waaataaaa!

Silly kid right? But these Muslims (and Protestants)... they commit crimes because Islam (and Luther?) made them inclined to.

Anyway... time to meditate and be as one with nature.

That's a perfect example of confirmation bias Luutzu - people see what they expect to see, which reinforces their previously held (mis)conceptions.

Perhaps they do..it is probably more exciting than being compelled to prayers.

The Italian lockup rate of muslims is apparently attributed to drug dealing, theft, falsifying documents and resisting arrest.

I seem to remember Italian 2nd gens were good at this, displaced by Vietnamese 2nd gens, and there is no secret about the wave of 2nd gen middle easterners going one step further and joining the 1%ers in bikies gangs, and I'm led to believe the islanders are getting in the swing of things. My prediction is the next wave will be the 2nd gen Africans.

Exactly.

 

[Calliope]

So what's the percentage of the Muslim population are in prison? 10%? 20%? Can't be 50% right? Say it's half. If Islam made people more inclined to crime, it's only doing a halfarse job.

You seem a little confused luutzu. My comment was on whether they enjoy committing atrocities, and judging by the brutal antics of ISIL in Iraq and Syria and Boko Haram in Nigeria, they certainly do.

 

[Craton]

The core values of the major religions are immoral and some of them can be described as wicked, that's all it takes to be evil.

You don't have to distort the written word, its the core principles I am talking about.

Take Christianity for example, it extols the virtue of scape goating and human sacrifice, the whole idea of us all being sinners because Adam and Eve disobeyed god is immoral, not to mention saying we are worthy of infinite eternal hell fire, for finite crimes. When your past that you get to the concept of torturing and killing another person to free us of our sins, this sort of scape goating is immoral, and it goes on and on, plenty of wickedness and immorality in the major religions teachings.

I see your point VC but bear with me. Christianity takes its lead from the bible, from the holy scriptures correct?

If that is so, then as the bible is a collection of the spoken word, written word and folklore (legend/tale/myth) all penned with the intention (evil or otherwise) of imposing on the masses and therefore, my argument holds true.