Quote:
Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance
So, Frankie, your numbers.
I know it's a waste of time as you're going to defend them even if I were to show they were uttered by the Pythoness of Delphi but here goes:
|
I cannot wait to see the upcoming torrential flood of illogic here...
Yep! You will notice that WOI tries to discredit me with a circumstantial ad hominem attack.
-Person A
(Frank) makes claim X.
(Immigration crime statistics)
-Person B
(WOI) asserts that A
(Frank) makes claim X
(Immigration crime statistics) because it is in A's
(Frank) interest to claim X
(Immigration crime statistics) citing Person A
(Franks) membership on a nationalist forum as evidence.
-Therefore claim X
(Immigration crime statistics) is false.
Quote:
|
Incidentally, the fact that you're a regular poster on Stormfront proves once again that you're a fascist as non-fascists are denied posting rights on stormfront except in a small subforum
|
You will note the sheer ignorance of this statement? WOI is like one of the many antifa activists running around who views anyone who disagrees with their views on immigration etc...as 'fascists.' Allow me to correct this defamatory ignorant statement by WOI...
Incidentally, the fact that you're a regular poster on Stormfront proves once again that you're a WHITE NATIONALIST as non-WHITE NATIONALISTS are denied posting rights on stormfront except in a small subforum
WOI has decided, in a fallacious manner BTW, to make fascism synonymous with white nationalism even though there are varying political beliefs within the movement; some support fascism while others do not. Nice try WOI but those who can think outside the box or at least rationally will reject your silly line of reasoning.
Three out of four young Muslims would prefer Muslim women to "choose to wear the veil or hijab," compared to only a quarter of over-55s. - Telegraph
My percentage calculator says 3 out of 4 is 75%. If the Telegraph has rounded the numbers off take it up with them.
Percentage Calculator
Quote:
|
Your list of sources is academically false.
|
This is what we call an ad nauseum fallacy folks! Repeating the same claim over and over even under different wording will not make the claim true.
They are two numbers from two different articles from two different times. One of the poll numbers is from ICM!
Quote:
|
it's 37% and not 40% BTW.
|
According to the UK Telegraph it is 40%; If the Telegraph has rounded the numbers off to the next highest tenth; take it up with them.
The BBC would seem to share your view but you will notice that they ADDED a percentage point to my 12%! Talk about cherry picking! Why did you ignore the following!?
3% of over-55s compared with 13% of 16 to 24-year-olds admire organisations like al-Qaeda that are prepared to fight the West
BBC NEWS | UK | Younger Muslims 'more political'
I find it quite odd that you nitpick 1 percentage point when one of the Telegraph percentage points is a too high yet you declined to give the proper number when one of them was too low and I would say that the most damning statistic was too low in my original numbers.
Quote:
|
The real source is a policy paper by Policy Exchange, but you knew that of course. So we add disingenuity and alteration of sources.
|
Just because a source is 'conservative' does not by default invalidate it's findings.
Quote:
Let's look at this single source:
Policy Exchange is a political spin factory for the British Conservative Party. They do not engage in independent research, they write up policies they want to see implemented if the Conservatives ever get back in power. As such, the only research they do is that which corroborates their political goals.
When we look at the methodology of the paper, we find none.  Any study of quality is obliged to explain its methodology. Therefore, the academic worth of your source is : zero.
|
This hardly proves anything as the British Tories are pro-diversity, pro-Islam and pro-Immigrantion.
Islam gets bad rap in Britain, David Cameron warns - Yahoo! News
Quote:
Step 4:
When one actually reads the whole of the source :
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ima...images/246.pdf
it becomes immediately obvious that you have cherrypicked (or rather shit-picked) figures from a 100-page report which suited your mindset.
I will do the same from the same report now:
|
What I did was present the Telegraph article as it is written. I apologise but I have an old computer and I have trouble keeping Adobe Acrobat Reader on the system but you will note that my numbers are accurate at least within 1 to 3 percentage points even by your own admission! The BBC actually adds a percentage point to the most damning statistic
Quote:
We can thus infer that Islamism is as temporary and innocent as punk was.
How nice and harmless. It could be about Pentecostal christians.
Anyone following this thread should read the entire paper linked above.
Executive summary:
|
I believe that they should as well...
Quote:
|
You compiled a list of out-of-context phrases and figures. You hid your true source and made alterations to the original data. The report you abused has no academic value to begin with.
|
What is laughable is that you claim that my numbers have no academic merit yet you encourage the forum gallery to examine a study by what you label a political spin factory.
You have yet to prove that even one of my numbers is inaccurate; oh you have launched personal attacks ad nauseum and attempted to poison the well but you have yet to prove that my numbers are in error.
Quote:
|
That's what I meant with "It's bullshit and you know it".
|
You have not prove anything to be 'b**shit.' The only revisions you have made to the Telegraphs numbers have been marginal at best! 74% instead of 75% and 37% instead of 40% in two cases is hardly worth changing my overall view of the matter.
At best you have proven that 37% of Muslims want Sharia Law instead of 40% but indeed illustrated that 13% instead of 12% of Muslims admire groups like Al-Qaeda and are willing to fight against the west; where is the b**shit?