Is it true that Britain has become more racist?

by Ben Reilly Sun Jun 01, 2014 7:21 pm

First topic message reminder :

Journalists like their stories to fit into an accepted current narrative. With domestic politics dominated by concerns over Europe and immigration, and the rise of the far-right elsewhere in the EU, it is understandable that editors are alert to evidence of rising racism in Britain.

But today's figures are not evidence of rising racism. In fact, if anything, the trend is of flat or declining levels of self-reported racial prejudice.

The statistics come from the annual British Social Attitudes survey which, since 1983, has interviewed one or two thousand people and asked if they are "very prejudiced", "a little bit prejudiced" or "not prejudiced at all" against people of other races.

Adding together the "very" (3%) and "a little" (27%) figures from this year's survey produces a total of 30% - up from last year (26%) but well below the year before (38%).

Yes, the current figure is higher than the lowest figures ever recorded (25% in 2000 and 2001) but then you could equally argue it is well below the high point of 38% recorded in 1987 and 2011.

Is it true that Britain has become more racist? - Page 8 _75148245_357fcd99-fce5-4280-a9b7-526031d96dc5

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27608252

by scrat Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:41 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Vicar of Dibley wrote:But don't worry about the Christianphobia going on

WHAT fucking Christianphobia?!

People post about a few crazy Christians or DARE criticize the tenets of Christianity AT THE SAME TIME as criticizing the tenets of ALL religions, and you cry Christianphobia as though we're saying all Christians are into, I don't know, beheadings, or FGM, or something.

Give me a fucking break!

You won't get the sense god gave a doughnut out of VOD, it's idea of love, is being chained to a post and fucked up the arse by some tattooed nazi wearing a gimp mask,,,,for the VOD, even mentioning normality freaks the fuck out of her.

by Ben Reilly Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:54 am

scrat wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Vicar of Dibley wrote:But don't worry about the Christianphobia going on

WHAT fucking Christianphobia?!

People post about a few crazy Christians or DARE criticize the tenets of Christianity AT THE SAME TIME as criticizing the tenets of ALL religions, and you cry Christianphobia as though we're saying all Christians are into, I don't know, beheadings, or FGM, or something.

Give me a fucking break!
You won't get the sense god gave a doughnut out of VOD, it's idea of love, is being chained to a post and fucked up the arse by some tattooed nazi wearing a gimp mask,,,,for the VOD, even mentioning normality freaks the fuck out of her.

I just can't help but feel sorry for people shackled with this shit, I was the same way. It makes you insane, and I'm starting to think maybe it was designed to do that.

I had a teacher in high school (he taught Latin, I'm probably one of the last people to study Latin in an American public school) who casually mentioned in one lesson that the Roman elite didn't really believe in the gods, they just paid public lip-service to them.

I've been wondering whether Marx wasn't 100 percent correct about religion. The little guy takes comfort in it because it tells him there is going to be ultimate justice, makes it easier to stomach the injustices we see in life -- rather than doing anything about them.

By the way, it should go without saying but I know better from here -- I mean all religion, not just Christianity Smile

(Don't y'all think I don't notice the quotes you put in your sigs. I thought the British were supposed to understand irony Smile

)

by scrat Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:15 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
scrat wrote:
You won't get the sense god gave a doughnut out of VOD, it's idea of love, is being chained to a post and fucked up the arse by some tattooed nazi wearing a gimp mask,,,,for the VOD, even mentioning normality freaks the fuck out of her.

I just can't help but feel sorry for people shackled with this shit, I was the same way. It makes you insane, and I'm starting to think maybe it was designed to do that.

I had a teacher in high school (he taught Latin, I'm probably one of the last people to study Latin in an American public school) who casually mentioned in one lesson that the Roman elite didn't really believe in the gods, they just paid public lip-service to them.

I've been wondering whether Marx wasn't 100 percent correct about religion. The little guy takes comfort in it because it tells him there is going to be ultimate justice, makes it easier to stomach the injustices we see in life -- rather than doing anything about them.

By the way, it should go without saying but I know better from here -- I mean all religion, not just Christianity

(Don't y'all think I don't notice the quotes you put in your sigs. I thought the British were supposed to understand irony )

They refuse to see the world as it actually is, the thought of no saviour is too much, the world is too big, too noisy and too rough, it makes less sense and it's spinning too fast.

With all the will in the world you cannot change the path we're on to globalisation, the material wealth of Capitalism is the new god, Christianity has been under the spotlight of globalisation and failed, Islam is under the spotlight and it will adjust to globalisation or it will fail, basic human rights come first, faith and religion can fight for position like the rest, in this brave new world.

Irony is played best by us Brits because we live in the midst of it.

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:24 am

Didge wrote:I see smelly still has no answer, gets better everyday his excuses.

I see didge is still shrieking that no one is listening to him

Answer my questions ::attn::

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:27 am

scrat wrote:The fraggle mind searches for abusive words to describe ethnic groups, it is racism.

They want to use niggermuslimfag, and whine about the PC culture stopping them from doing so, thankfully 99% of us Brits can act with some decorum in public, others have yet to complete their "potty training" and are confined to spewing out such bile online.

You just contradicted yourself

Earlier you said the concept of race has changed to "ethnicity"

So why use a word that applies to a concept that is no longer (according to you) being used??

Shouldn't the word be ethnicist or ethnicism??

While we are at it what is the ethnicity of Christian??

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:32 pm

Still no counters from smelly, seems all he can do is talk about people, well no suprise there then.

He has no answer to Muslims can be racially stereotyped, in fact has avoided this at every turn.

Christians can be racially stereotyped also, wonder if the can figure that one out also, I doubt it though.

I see also he seems confused over the concept racism and its definition.

Oh my.

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:51 pm

Didge wrote:Still no counters from smelly, seems all he can do is talk about people, well no suprise there then.

He has no answer to Muslims can be racially stereotyped, in fact has avoided this at every turn.

Christians can be racially stereotyped also, wonder if the can figure that one out also, I doubt it though.

I see also he seems confused over the concept racism and its definition.

Oh my.

I already said Muslims can be racially stereotyped you regard

Lol

Anyone can

But NOT because they are Muslim

You still don't understand that religion and race are two separate things

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:54 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Didge wrote:Still no counters from smelly, seems all he can do is talk about people, well no suprise there then.

He has no answer to Muslims can be racially stereotyped, in fact has avoided this at every turn.

Christians can be racially stereotyped also, wonder if the can figure that one out also, I doubt it though.

I see also he seems confused over the concept racism and its definition.

Oh my.

I already said Muslims can be racially stereotyped you regard

Lol

Anyone can

But NOT because they are Muslim

You still don't understand that religion and race are two separate things

You regard, good insult ha ha ha

I understand plenty and have stated they can be religiously racially targeted, which you still are unable to understand, read back and see you just make things up to what I have said, which is the funniest part.

So tell me why do many people racially stereotype Muslims as Arabs for example in America?

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:57 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:The fact is, most of the far right are "Sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist (or) bigoted."
They're just trying to turn the accusations into something they can mock.
Like a rapist yelling, "Oh yeah, I like to rape women, bring me some co-eds!" as though it somehow deflects what the rapist actually does.
Not to mention that "intolerant" and "bigoted" mean the same thing ... Einsteins that they are ...

Explain how wanting less immigration, less govt quangos, less govt spending, less EU, less taxes makes me far right or any of the SIXHIRB tags that leftie 'progressives' like to label people with.
The same leftie 'progressives' who actually want more immigration, more quangos, more govt spending, more borrowing, more EU, more taxes, less national identity, more totalitarian authoritarian state control.

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:01 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:The fact is, most of the far right are "Sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist (or) bigoted."
They're just trying to turn the accusations into something they can mock.
Like a rapist yelling, "Oh yeah, I like to rape women, bring me some co-eds!" as though it somehow deflects what the rapist actually does.
Not to mention that "intolerant" and "bigoted" mean the same thing ... Einsteins that they are ...
Explain how wanting less immigration, less govt quangos, less govt spending, less EU, less taxes makes me far right or any of the SIXHIRB tags that leftie 'progressives' like to label people with.
The same leftie 'progressives' who actually want more immigration, more quangos, more govt spending, more borrowing, more EU, more taxes, less national identity, less national security, more totalitarian authoritarian state control.

The above has nothing to do with the fact racist, homophobic and xenophobic, you use those views as an excuse to be racistand xenophobic, which is the most pathetic part and then deny that you are..
You label people all the time and yet fear people placing labels on you.

For example to you gay parents are child abusers.

The fact is you are racist, you are xenophobic and you are very anti-homosexual the worst part being is you jump on some genuine concerns people have to try to hide behind, when you argue and prove daily you are very much racist, xenophobic and anti-homosexual

Irony at its best, Matti does not want to be labelled but wants to label everyone else

Go firgure

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:24 pm

Didge wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

I already said Muslims can be racially stereotyped you regard

Lol

Anyone can

But NOT because they are Muslim

You still don't understand that religion and race are two separate things

You regard, good insult ha ha ha

I understand plenty and have stated they can be religiously racially targeted, which you still are unable to understand, read back and see you just make things up to what I have said, which is the funniest part.

So tell me why do many people racially stereotype Muslims as Arabs for example in America?

I don't need to "read back" I understand perfectly what I said and what you said

You attempted to combine racial and religious abuse but only where Muslims where concerned

To the point where you were claiming that anti Muslim abuse is racism

When I applied your logic To Christians you wound your neck in and did a runner

Saying

Fuck you white boy

And

Fuck you Muslim

Are two DIFFERENT styles of abuse

You as usual attempt to protect Muslims by trying to say its racist to be anti Islam or Muslim

I asked you is a person who is anti Muslim a racist

You tucked tail and refused to answer

Hence there is nothing more to debate

by stardesk Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:31 pm

Didge wrote:Remember smelly mine is just a typo, you admit to needing a spell check, which is even funnier that you do need one an fail to see the irony of that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

May I remind you Didge of your criticism on page 3, of my (according to you) misspelling of Muslim, which you continue to use, when in fact the word is MOSLEM. See your dictionary.

I must agree with Smelly, that race and religion are two seperate issues. Being racist is a criticism of a particular nationality. Religious criticism is intolerance of a faith, therefore two different aspects. One is racist, the other intolerance.

Hope that sets the record straight folks.

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:34 pm

Good luck with that stardesk mongfuck didge has been rambling for several pages and bizarrely posted a government excerpt that made a clear distinction between racial and religious abuse

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:34 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Didge wrote:

You regard, good insult ha ha ha

I understand plenty and have stated they can be religiously racially targeted, which you still are unable to understand, read back and see you just make things up to what I have said, which is the funniest part.

So tell me why do many people racially stereotype Muslims as Arabs for example in America?

I don't need to "read back" I understand perfectly what I said and what you said

You attempted to combine racial and religious abuse but only where Muslims where concerned

To the point where you were claiming that anti Muslim abuse is racism

When I applied your logic To Christians you wound your neck in and did a runner

Saying

Fuck you white boy

And

Fuck you Muslim

Are two DIFFERENT styles of abuse

You as usual attempt to protect Muslims by trying to say its racist to be anti Islam or Muslim

I asked you is a person who is anti Muslim a racist

You tucked tail and refused to answer

Hence there is nothing more to debate

Never did a runner as seen Christians can be racially stereotyped also which now you are running from showing again how clueless you are on this, in fact one racial group has been for centuries racially and religiously persecuted in this country, showing again how utterly clueless you are.
The two abuses can go hand in hand, combined behind why a person is being a abused, showing that it is you that fails to understand anything.

A person who is anti-Muslims can be very well racist also if they racially stereotype Muslims, it is as simple as that. What is even worse is you think that the points I highlight just involve someone saying fuck you Muslims, they do not, that was changing the the reality of many having racial motives also, showing how again you have the poorest understanding which is why you do not even understand racism, but is funny watching you struggle to try

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:38 pm

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:
Explain how wanting less immigration, less govt quangos, less govt spending, less EU, less taxes makes me far right or any of the SIXHIRB tags that leftie 'progressives' like to label people with.
The same leftie 'progressives' who actually want more immigration, more quangos, more govt spending, more borrowing, more EU, more taxes, less national identity, less national security, more totalitarian authoritarian state control.
The above has nothing to do with the fact racist, homophobic and xenophobic, you use those views as an excuse to be racistand xenophobic, which is the most pathetic part and then deny that you are..
You label people all the time and yet fear people placing labels on you.
For example to you gay parents are child abusers.
The fact is you are racist, you are xenophobic and you are very anti-homosexual the worst part being is you jump on some genuine concerns people have to try to hide behind, when you argue and prove daily you are very much racist, xenophobic and anti-homosexual
Irony at its best, Matti does not want to be labelled but wants to label everyone else
Go firgure

Labour have admitted they got it wrong on immigration.

Tory were elected with the promise of reducing immigration to tens of thousands, which dodge claims to support, although immigration has actually gone up!

But when I say I want immigration lowered I am branded a racist xenaphobe far right Nazi etc etc Blah Blah bullshit...

You can't have it both ways dodge, although I know 'double speak' is a key tool for you leftie 'progressives'.

by stardesk Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:40 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:Good luck with that stardesk mongfuck didge has been rambling for several pages and bizarrely posted a government excerpt that made a clear distinction between racial and religious abuse

----------------
Hi Smelly. You're probably right mate.
----------------

Didge, what's happened to you? Just lately you have been so contradictory and controversial. We've had some good discussions in the past, what's gone wrong Buddy?

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:41 pm

stardesk wrote:
Didge wrote:Remember smelly mine is just a typo, you admit to needing a spell check, which is even funnier that you do need one an fail to see the irony of that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

May I remind you Didge of your criticism on page 3, of my (according to you) misspelling of Muslim, which you continue to use, when in fact the word is MOSLEM. See your dictionary.

I must agree with Smelly, that race and religion are two seperate issues. Being racist is a criticism of a particular nationality. Religious criticism is intolerance of a faith, therefore two different aspects. One is racist, the other intolerance.

Hope that sets the record straight folks.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Muslim

So again why do you mispell the word Stardesk

So why are Jews seen as a race stardesk, based upon the fact you can also convert to Judaism?

You can put the two together where you associate a person of a religion with race, which is what happens many times in this country where many are associated with Pakistani's and Muslims, yet not so much from Bangladesh, even though there is many people from Bangladesh, showing how the two can go hand in hand together which is what smelly is missing, you have more sense and way more intelligence that him, so no doubt will see this point. The Irish were for centuries persecuted and were identified behind this persecution because of their race and religion, are you denying this?

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:42 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge wrote:
The above has nothing to do with the fact racist, homophobic and xenophobic, you use those views as an excuse to be racistand xenophobic, which is the most pathetic part and then deny that you are..
You label people all the time and yet fear people placing labels on you.
For example to you gay parents are child abusers.
The fact is you are racist, you are xenophobic and you are very anti-homosexual the worst part being is you jump on some genuine concerns people have to try to hide behind, when you argue and prove daily you are very much racist, xenophobic and anti-homosexual
Irony at its best, Matti does not want to be labelled but wants to label everyone else
Go firgure

Labour have admitted they got it wrong on immigration.

Tory were elected with the promise of reducing immigration to tens of thousands, which dodge claims to support, although immigration has actually gone up!

But when I say I want immigration lowered I am branded a racist xenaphobe far right Nazi etc etc Blah Blah bullshit...

You can't have it both ways dodge, although I know 'double speak' is a key tool for you leftie 'progressives'.

You use the above as a smoke screen your views on plenty of subjects have exposed your views all the time, so the above is irrelevant

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:45 pm

And my views are....?

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:47 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:And my views are....?

Wow, it says much that you need to ask after being told and ho you debate.

I suggest before you think about placing labels, if you do not like them yourself

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:50 pm

What labels have I placed that are not factually correct?

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:50 pm

Didge the defender getting touchy about the difference between "pakis"

Didge "paki" is a generic term no one gives a fuck if you're actually from Pakistan or Bangladesh

You're still a "paki"

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:52 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:Didge the defender getting touchy about the difference between "pakis"

Didge "paki" is a generic term no one gives a fuck if you're actually from Pakistan or Bangladesh

You're still a "paki"

Hilarious, no just able to show up your poor arguments, and use this to further this point and you just proved my point.

So you think the Irish are now Pakiistani's, guess you really do need to go back to school then and that the Irish are now Muslims to you

:-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-:

Unable to counter my points, oh well, smelly crawls away back to his cave.

Is it true that Britain has become more racist? - Page 8 9k=

Is it true that Britain has become more racist? - Page 8 9k=

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:55 pm

Didge I never said that a person cannot be a victim of both you simpleton

What you don't understand or are deliberately trying to avoid is that racial and religious abuse are not always linked

This is why I laugh at you didge, you never read what people post and you make shit up as you go along and then claim that IVE said it , then you start attacking what you say I've said

Your mind must be a never ending maze

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:55 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:What labels have I placed that are not factually correct?

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:56 pm

You're not Irish didge

You as good as admitted to being in Pakistan the other day

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:58 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:Didge I never said that a person cannot be a victim of both you simpleton

What you don't understand or are deliberately trying to avoid is that racial and religious abuse are not always linked

This is why I laugh at you didge, you never read what people post and you make shit up as you go along and then claim that IVE said it , then you start attacking what you say I've said

Your mind must be a never ending maze

I never stated they are always linked

DOH

Dear me, you really try to worm out of the debate, where it was stated that both can be as seen with groups, which still happen to today. You so badly twist out of things it is comical and hence why you can laugh all you like mate, I just sit here astounded you do not bump into the wall everyday your intelligence is so poor. The fact is as stated before which I said from the start is in many cases people are racially stereotyped for their religions and racially and religiously abused and this has gone on for centuries and I knew you would go very silent when I brought up the Jewish race

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:01 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:You're not Irish didge

You as good as admitted to being in Pakistan the other day

You mean you decided that was what you think I was saying showing again you are like when a person is homophobic and thinks calling some a gay is an insult, showing the infantile level of your intelligence even when it comes to what you constitute as an insult, which is even funnier you think that.

It just makes me laugh and proves how desperate you become

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:01 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:What labels have I placed that are not factually correct?

Well?
You constantly bandy about your SIXHIRB attacks on anyone who dares disagree with your agenda, but cannot really justify the use of any of them.
You are a twister, a liar, and a hypocrite.

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:04 pm

Didge wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:You're not Irish didge

You as good as admitted to being in Pakistan the other day

You mean you decided that was what you think I was saying showing again you are like when a person is homophobic and thinks calling some a gay is an insult, showing the infantile level of your intelligence even when it comes to what you constitute as an insult, which is even funnier you think that.

It just makes me laugh and proves how desperate you become

Didge

You made a mistake and slipped up, your english is so poor I don't think you even realised what you were saying

You can make whatever claims you want - it's the internet after all

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:05 pm

And What race is a Jew dodge?
There are Jews of many different ethnicities, and as you have already said, anyone can convert to Judaism.
So care to explain...???

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:06 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Well?
You constantly bandy about your SIXHIRB attacks on anyone who dares disagree with your agenda, but cannot really justify the use of any of them.
You are a twister, a liar, and a hypocrite.

No you are a racist, homophobe and xenophobe, it has been proven countless times and you wish to deny this, that is your own problem, but the fact is you are, get used to it, as we all get used to your hate and the fact you promote hate and label many people yourself. I am now showing you the world you have created for others being created onto yourself.

Get used to it, because this is what you are

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:08 pm

What's a sixhirb??

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:08 pm

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Well?
You constantly bandy about your SIXHIRB attacks on anyone who dares disagree with your agenda, but cannot really justify the use of any of them.
You are a twister, a liar, and a hypocrite.

No you are a racist, homophobe and xenophobe, it has been proven countless times and you wish to deny this, that is your own problem, but the fact is you are, get used to it, as we all get used to your hate and the fact you promote hate and label many people yourself. I am now showing you the world you have created for others being created onto yourself.

Get used to it, because this is what you are

Lol

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:10 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:What's a sixhirb??

Something poorly created to defend people like you, which has to the funniest defense for idiots ever invented

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:23 pm

So what have I ever said that wasn't factually correct...?

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:28 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:So what have I ever said that wasn't factually correct...?

Plenty where you make poor accusations like one third of offenders of children are gay, which as I proved was factually wrong as you went off those convicted, when many are not even convicted and as shown many victims have female offenders, which you then bowed out from knowing you did not have facts but poor assumptions.

Anyway you jut live in denial, but do not worry am here to keep reminding you

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:34 pm

And if you wish to carry on twisting what I said, then I will keep on reminding you....

A third of child abusers are men who target only boys.

Can you show any homosexuals who target only girls?

And in a study of sex offenders over a 5 year period, 85% of those men who targeted only boys described themselves as being homosexual or bi sexual.

Now am I homophobic for pointing out this inconvenient truth?

Next?

Yen you want to try racist or xenaphobic now...??

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:40 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:And if you wish to carry on twisting what I said, then I will keep on reminding you....
A third of child abusers are men who target only boys.
Can you show any homosexuals who target only girls?
And in a study of sex offenders over a 5 year period, 85% of those men who targeted only boys described themselves as being homosexual or bi sexual.
Now am I homophobic for pointing out this inconvenient truth?
Next?
Yen you want to try racist or xenaphobic now...??

Incorrect again, it states that a third of people abused are boys, not that they are men that target them, that is your bullshit made up. What we know is convictions, yet only around 10-20% of those who abused are convicted, showing your maths is shockingly crap and goes off convictions, when as shown victims report around 37% women offenders and 36% of males offenders to boys, which can include those who offend both boys and girls. Your whole view is based off poor maths as seen, and only on convictions, not actual knowledge from the victims themselves on who is the offender, so if a third of the victims are boys and 36% are male offenders of which there is no link either to many even being homosexual, does that equate to a third of child abusers are men that target boys?

No

So it is incorrect to say a third of abusers are men that target boys, that is bullshit and not going to have you descend into your delusional rants, because as seen you are talking bullshit

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:49 pm

NSPCC web site states clearly that about a third of child abusers are men who target only boys.

So does that make me homophobic by quoting something that is on the NSPCC web site?

And I'm sure they care more about children than the sensitivities of The homosexuals who sexually abuse so many of them, and won't be taking down the inconvenient truth either!!!

Want to try racist next or xenaphobic....???

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:53 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:NSPCC web site states clearly that about a third of child abusers are men who target only boys.

No it does not, you go off the below stat an then go off prison stats to come to your poor mathematical conclusions, which as seen I debunked very easily.

60-70% of child sex offenders target girls only, about 20-33% boys only, and about 10% children of either sex.

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:56 pm

As seen, it says about a third are men who target only boys.
Thanks for finally admitting that what i said is true.
Now do you want to try justifying calling me racist next or xenaphobic....?

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:57 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:As seen, it says about a third are men who target only boys.

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

60-70% of child sex offenders target girls only, about 20-33% boys only, and about 10% children of either sex.

Where does it say the word "men"?

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:08 pm

The overwhelming majority of child sex abusers are men.

Over 99%.

Anyway, enough wriggling, we've already had this argument, and you failed then.

How is anything here justification for calling me homophobic?

Now, are you going to try to justify calling me racist next or xenaphobic...???

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:09 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:As seen, it says about a third are men who target only boys.
Thanks for finally admitting that what i said is true.
Now do you want to try justifying calling me racist next or xenaphobic....?

you are wasting your time tommy, the gays on here will not accept that gay peadoes even exist, for some reason sexual preference for peadoes isn't the same, so a peado who only ever chooses boys is just a peado to them but to all normal people they are a gay peado...

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:13 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:As seen, it says about a third are men who target only boys.
Thanks for finally admitting that what i said is true.
Now do you want to try justifying calling me racist next or xenaphobic....?

you are wasting your time tommy, the gays on here will not accept that gay peadoes even exist, for some reason sexual preference for peadoes isn't the same, so a peado who only ever chooses boys is just a peado to them but to all normal people they are a gay peado...

Not even debating the psychology part but showing now Matti invents words to reports by the NSPCC and also is shockingly bad at maths.

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:24 pm

Didge wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

you are wasting your time tommy, the gays on here will not accept that gay peadoes even exist, for some reason sexual preference for peadoes isn't the same, so a peado who only ever chooses boys is just a peado to them but to all normal people they are a gay peado...

Not even debating the psychology part but showing now Matti invents words to reports by the NSPCC and also is shockingly bad at maths.

there is no debate to the psychology, our preferences define our sexuality homo or hetero, any peado who constantly choose the same sex as them is a gay peado...

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:29 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
Didge wrote:

Not even debating the psychology part but showing now Matti invents words to reports by the NSPCC and also is shockingly bad at maths.

there is no debate to the psychology, our preferences define our sexuality homo or hetero, any peado who constantly choose the same sex as them is a gay peado...

Really as it seems many scientific people who study this disagree with you greatly, can you offer your scientific data to back up your claims?
How many Pedophiles have you studied and please present your findings with your methodology and statistics?

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:39 pm

Didge wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

there is no debate to the psychology, our preferences define our sexuality homo or hetero, any peado who constantly choose the same sex as them is a gay peado...

Really as it seems many scientific people who study this disagree with you greatly, can you offer your scientific data to back up your claims?
How many Pedophiles have you studied and please present your findings with your methodology and statistics?

lol scientist will tell you we came from apes..lol what ever next ..

by Guest Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:43 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
Didge wrote:

Really as it seems many scientific people who study this disagree with you greatly, can you offer your scientific data to back up your claims?
How many Pedophiles have you studied and please present your findings with your methodology and statistics?

lol scientist will tell you we came from apes..lol what ever next ..

So basically you have no methodology or evidence to back your claim, except some poor prejudice you already hold, being as you think homosexuality is wrong due to your faith and thus offer a poor biased opinion.

Sorry, that is not credible, interesting to have your view, but worthless as evidence for your claim

by Sponsored content