Victoribus Spolia wrote:I don't recall any "whining" though I will say that "labeling" in that manner is counterproductive. I am saying that we shouldn't define those who are ethnically brits as British citizens at all. The social contract's multicultural implications are the root cause of these problems, that is what I am arguing. Sure. If you were not referring to my advancing the policy of proportional enforcement based on demographics, then you should not have made this response to that point.
You have not just argued for "racial profiling" that is just one of the arguments you have made, instead you have tried right from the beginning to argue for the separation of British citizens based on their religion. Just because you have used different argumentative tactics to reach to the same conclusion it does not mean that I have not been calling you out on the very same thing right from the beginning. I find it hilarious though that after spending numerous words trying to justify the removal of the Muslim demographic from society you are now reducing yourself down to merely arguing for 'racial profiling' alone.
I only admitted that if you insist on narrowing the scope of acceptable criteria to only those immediate circumstances pertaining to a single month's crime-rate fluctuation, that you are narrowing the scope too much to allow for anything but speculation.
In fact, one month is not even enough to time to prove that your own posited theory of reducing "stop-and-search" as the answer, that could only be confirmed after a prolong study involving multiple months and even years.
The problem is not the evidence I am giving, but the evidence which are allowing for in the conversation. You are limiting the scope of what is relevant to the point of making almost everything irrelevant.
You are not making any sense whatsoever. What one month? What narrowing are you even talking about?
The question is why have knife-attacks increased so much? The only thing you said was "Muslims" and when pressed you said "because Muslims make up 15% of the inmate population between 2001-2012". Neither of which provides any kind of explanation in any manner as to why knife-attacks have increased in these levels during the past years. Now you are whining again for a supposed imaginary censorship against data that have allegedly been dismissed
In the BBC article I linked there are various graphs:
All in all you have tried to frame Muslims as responsible for the increase in crime without any kind of data to support your argument but this speculation has not prevented you from arguing that Muslims should not be citizens at all and at the same time complaining that what you are arguing for is not racial discrimination(what is it?) and that you have been prevented from presenting data as well. All in all, supposedly you are a victim here.
My point is, that if you believe, for instance, that the country should be ruled under an Eastern Orthodox theocracy, the criteria for citizenship would be different and would likely preclude Muslims. Is that racism? I don't think so, that seems to be a legit question regarding the forms of government and their criteria of what defines a citizen.
Of course it is racism. It is discrimination based on ethnic identity.
If a communist regime bans Christians is that racist? No, not when you consider their reasons (which are still wrong).
...take your common sense with you, and leave your prejudices behind...