Taytoland wrote: » Why is anyone surprised? They consider us to be infidels and white women as pieces of meat, designed to be abused, raped and just for sex.
SnakePlissken wrote: » Ah tis yourself again, I thought you abandoned this thread after I provided reputable statistics proving 12% of all convicted sexual abusers in the UK come from a pool of 3% of the total populace and that 75% of all groomers are also Muslim, do you disagree with my assertions? If so, do please provide some sources with evidence proving otherwise.
Captain Obvious wrote: » Pot meet kettle.
Grayson wrote: » It doesn't point to a cultural problem. Those hundreds are a percentage of a percentage of all the muslims. If there was a "cultural" problem it would be bigger.
Grayson wrote: » The catholic church as an organisation covered up the abusers. But there's nothing in being a priest that makes someone more likely to be an abuser. The problem there was an organisation. The number of priests who were abusers is still statistically tiny. And I certainly wouldn't say a priest is more likely to be an abuser.
professore wrote: » So the Catholic Church was a problem and Islam isn't. OK. And I don't know the stats but a religion that represses sexuality is surely more likely to produce abusers?
SnakePlissken wrote: » Just to be clear here? I never made any suggestion of the sort, have a look through my posts I didn't even come close to such an inference. Now if you're finished with your disingenuous and childishly obvious attempt at deflection, would you like to answer the question put to you.
Grayson wrote: » It doesn't point to a cultural problem. Those hundreds are a percentage of a percentage of all the muslims. If there was a "cultural" problem it would be bigger. The catholic church as an organisation covered up the abusers. But there's nothing in being a priest that makes someone more likely to be an abuser. The problem there was an organisation. The number of priests who were abusers is still statistically tiny. And I certainly wouldn't say a priest is more likely to be an abuser.
professore wrote: » What are you talking about? My maths are perfectly correct. It's you who are wilfully blind. I specifically said it doesn't mean all Muslims are rapists or even a majority. It DOES however point to a cultural problem in Islam. These gangs have sprung up in several UK cities, even relatively small ones. This is not some sort of statistical anomaly. Would you say the Catholic Church in Ireland had nothing to do with sexual abuse? Because its the same argument you are making about Islam. If you are prepared to overlook the systematic rape of thousands of British girls then shame on you, you are no better than the Catholic hierarchy who covered up and excused abuse in their ranks. And I am not racist. Or islamophobic. I strongly support secular Muslims such as Maajid Nawaz and apostates like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Or moderate Muslims. I even have Muslim friends. But excusing this stuff is idiotic and dangerous.
SnakePlissken wrote: » I'll take that as a completely predictable no from you. You see, homophobia is a very personal topic to me, that you are one who time and time again has shown themselves as having no desire whatsoever of discuss this very real issue in the hope of perhaps coming to a greater understanding means you are of f_ck all use to me.
SnakePlissken wrote: » Now if you're finished with your disingenuous and childishly obvious attempt at deflection, would you like to answer the question put to you.
Odhinn wrote: » The thread is about an attack in kildare.
Grayson wrote: » Jesus. That's what is called manipulating the figures which is what I was talking about earlier. You are choosing your own sample to make muslims in general seem like a danger. That's not just bad maths, it's deliberately bad maths. The amount of muslims doing this is minuscule. even in a general population the amount doing this would be miniscule. You are picking two extremely small sample sizes to make a point. There are millions of muslims there are hundreds of rapists. If you are willing to deliberately misrepresent the figures it's because you have a bias. You don't want to see the truth, you want to try to illustrate a point that's not possible to illustrate if you're honest. You have an irrational hatred of Muslims. It's irrational because there's no figures to back it up. Yes there are hundreds of Muslim rapists but there are millions that aren't. Rather than see hundreds and assume that millions are the same the logical path would be to ask what made that subset of hundreds different.
SnakePlissken wrote: » Just to be clear here? I never made any suggestion of the sort, have a look through my posts I didn't even come close to such an inference.
Marina Calm Adhesive wrote: » Hold on, let me get this straight. He's an illegal immigrant, who was part of a gang rape. The judge grants him asylum because of a potential future in football and he gets off from gang raping a girl whose life has probably been destroyed. So by participating in a sick sexual crime, he gets moved to the top of the asylum list and granted asylum? Those two rugby players up the North had their lives destroyed and were fired from their teams, but this illegal gets rewarded? Where are the feminists now? His other rapist pal was caught by the guards for engaging in a phone scamhttps://www.herald.ie/news/false-name-and-card-used-in-iphones-scam-30946381.html And these two are still in the country because??? So women are below minorities now is it? I actually can't keep up.
Odhinn wrote: » Just to be clear here - you're saying that the perpetrators of the crime in the OP committed in this state. are muslims?
SnakePlissken wrote: » Do you wish to discuss the many reputable polls taken in the UK which clearly indicate the majority of UK Muslims want homosexuality criminalised? Please share your information with the rest of us what research you have undertaken to come to the conclusion that Muslims entering Ireland from similar geographic, cultural, and religious backgrounds as those in the UK will be any less homophobic?
Odhinn wrote: » You know the precise group involved? Please share your information with the rest of us.
SnakePlissken wrote: » Homophobes would be an apt descriptor, we don't need them, nor want them.
Odhinn wrote: » Who is "them"?
Shiloh Ripe Sandbox wrote: » Not sure they have donkeys there, but unlikely it would occur even under 'banter' or a game of 'dare-sies' in any European culture.
JohnMc1 wrote: » Well there the Lidl's Digger robbery earlier in the year and 3 Foreign Nationals raped a Woman in Bagenalstown and 3 more [or could be the same 3. The Gardai are looking into it] raped another Woman in Kildare a few days ago. I think that qualifies as running around like wild animals. Just because its not in the same frequency as the Germany,Sweden,France and Britain doesn't mean we won't get it that frequently eventually. The more of them we import the more savage they get.
Blaas4life wrote: » This is the kinda sh1te ya expect to be going on in kilkenny
Strazdas wrote: » Who exactly is "running wild like animals" in Ireland? You're accusing migrants to the country of doing things that are not even happening.....this is very provocative language.
Shiloh Ripe Sandbox wrote: » But many Europeans were highly confused with the 15 Moroccan boys treated for rabies (last year) after an 'inducing an intimate gang relation with a donkey'.
professore wrote: » You can clearly say based on the numbers that Muslim men are far more likely than non Muslim men to form a rape gang and also far more likely to get away with it. For decades. That's not the same as saying every Muslim is a rapist. I have a degree in mathematics and understand what stats do and don't say. If 75% hail from a population of 3% this means that a Muslim man is 25 times more likely to be a member of a grooming gang than a non Muslim.
