Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread

Faith if you are going to try citing sources supposedly in favour of your position, you shouldn't get surprised and angry when people agree with those sources instead of you.

Your post certainly seemed angry. And you have to admit that it was hardly an acceptance of the fact that Vimesy was actually agreeing with the evidence you introduced. instead you complain about "political correctness" for some weird reason.

quote:

---

Sorry I've already lost track of who said what. Except that Vimesey misquoted me about the numbers. Isn't that all I mentioned

---

He also pointed out that the car-burning seems to be a French thing rather than a specifically Muslim thing. Which is certainly supported by the results of your google search.

quote:

---

Political correctness is the whitewashing of the burning of the cars to deny that it's Muslim jihad.

---

On the evidence you presented, it is not Muslim jihad. And on the first page when I saw it, there were a bunch of links about New Years Day (at least one saying that the car burning was a French habit), one about Bastille Day and one about French anglers attacking their British rivals. None that I looked at singled out Muslims or mentioned the average car burnings per day at all.And if you are going to insist that all those are "politically correct" "whitewashing" why offer them as evidence at all ?

Aside from jealous French anglers what's the evidence for the figure of 80 a day ? You haven't offered anything other than you thought you heard it on Christian radio.

Actually going one link further and quoting la figaro would have been sensible. But OK the total figure is around 80 a day. We still have no idea how many are torched by Muslims nor any connection to jihad (there are a lot of urban poor Muslims in Some French cities which may have more to do with any Muslim involvement than jihad)

Of course the idea that every car set alight in France has been torched by a jihadi arsonist is pretty implausible. And let's not forget the danger from jealous French anglers.One UK fire service states that : So, about 200 a day deliberately torched to cover criminal activity or just as vandalism. Puts the French 80 a day figure into perspective. source

quote:

---

Wonderful. I don't understand the mentality but it's certainly predictable by now. You just don't want it to be Muslims, therefore it isn't Muslims, despite those saying it is Muslims and despite the fact that Political Correctness demands that it not be Muslims which ought to be a red flag but for some reason isn't.

---

I don't understand the mentality but it is certainly predictable by now. When the evidence turns out to go against your claims you start lying about everyone who dares to disagree with you.The fact is that we have evidence that on average a total of 80 cars a day are torched in France. Simply on the evidence the claim that Muslims are torching nearly one hundred - the original claim - is almost certainly false. We can say that it is likely that some of the perpetrators are Muslims, but nearly ALL of them ? That is unlikely, even without the much higher UK figures (which might be out of date, but are certainly good enough for a comparison)Wielding the cudgel of "political correctness" as an excuse for prejudice and hate - for a guilty until proven innocent mentality is hardly any better. If any accusation against Muslims is to be held to be true in the absence of evidence - or even, as in this case, the presence of contrary evidence - because it is "politically correct" to hold that Muslims are innocent then you are rejecting justice in favour of prejudice.

quote:

---

As far as I can see there is no clear evidence that it's not mostly Muslims as you all insist.

---

For you to be correct it has to be pretty much all Muslims. If three quarters of them were Muslims you would have only 60 a day, which is hardly pushing 100. And I don't see any reason to believe that it's that high - surely criminals covering up evidence and non-Muslim vandals account for a significant proportion. I'm sure that some of the people burning cars happen to be Muslims, but that is as far as the evidence will take us.

quote:

---

Political Correctness IS the correct explanation for all the gyrations that go into covering up any crime or fault of Muslims or any outgroup,

---

What is the correct term for questioning unevidenced and likely false accusations against an outgroup - which is what is actually going on in this discussion ?

Thst's just nit-picking. The point remains the same and remains valid. On what basis can you conclude that the vast majority of torchings are committed by Muslims? Surely non-Muslim criminals, joyriders and vandals account for a sizeable proportion.

quote:

---

It's your own personal wild guess against half a dozen good sources I happen to have heard on this subject over the last few months.

---

Since your ability to evaluate sources is nil, I'll prefer my reasonable estimates.Have we really got to the point where the idea that non-Muslim criminals and vandals burn cars requires evidence while the idea that they do not can be accepted based only hearsay ? Doesn't the basic credibility of the two ideas strongly weigh in the opposite direction ?

quote:

---

You are very nave about the motives and ability of the left to suppress truth about Muslim involvement.

---

No, I just don't trust conspiracy-theory type excuses for the lack of evidence. Especially when they are deployed as a diversion.Again, is it really reasonable to assume that non-Muslim criminals and vandals do NOT torch cars?

quote:

---

That's just a red herring PK, a distraction.

---

It certainly is not. If 80 cars a day are torched in France it isn't possible for 80 cars a day to be torched by Muslims unless non-Muslims are responsible for a tiny proportion. It is certainly not a "wild guess" to point out that this is unlikely.So, given your attempt to change the subject in your previous post I have to say that your claim is not only an obvious falsehood, it is also more than a little hypocritical.

quote:

---

I'm sure there are some copycats, so what?

---

Why would they have to be copycats ? Torching a car is a good way to destroy forensic evidence and I don't think that French criminals or joyriders need Muslims to tell them that.

quote:

---

The thing is you don't know anything about how many Muslims are involved in the car burnings, you are surmising and guessing, and in fact there is no reliable evidence to tell us how many. That there are others involved is apparently also true, but how many who knows?

---

Now you're mixing up people and incidents. But none of this answers my point. The idea that virtually none of the car torchings are carried out by non-Muslims doesn't pass the smell test. It's just too unlikely to be simply assumed. Pointing that out is not guessing, it's simple rationality.

quote:

---

But the jihad motivation in the case of the Muslims seems to be pretty clear.

---

It seems to be pretty clearly a daft invention. And quoting claims about evidence from an obviously biased site - evidence which wouldn't even do much to support the claim if it was true - is hardly helpful.I'll also point out that anti-semitism is hardly confined to Muslims. Sadly, France has neo-Nazis too. And even though the Front Nationale threw out their former leader, Jean Marie Le Pen for Holocaust denial, it hardly changes the fact that he had been their leader, despite his views.

I could point to automatically linking anti-Semitism to Muslims, despite the existence of other anti-Semitic groups as an obvious example of bias.

It seems to me that in the absence of ethnic data it is still absurd to assume without any support at all that virtually all crimes of any particular type are perpetrated by members of a single religion. To assume - with equal lack of evidence - a particular motive simply adds to the absurdity.