Since we all:
1) SHOULD BE SCEPTICS
2) ALWAYS BENEFIT FROM 'PROOFS'
3) INCREASE OUR GRAVITAS
Let's please try to make a habit of posting URL backups so that we know reality is being asserted, and that we can all judge the 'fact' site and assertion in the full light of day.
I have NO IDEA if muslim birth rates drop to the same as the society they are in or not.
I hope that is right, because it would be a marker of ASSIMILATION. IMHO
But I remain a sceptic, so Damien II if that was you, please let's have the URL, otherwise it's just a claim
9 comments:
"The second factor why fertility rates are changing among immigrant women is assimilation to the to local fertility patterns. This assimilation to the local patterns of fertility though exposure to the larger society in various forms, such as educational attainment, employment, national welfare policies, have been observed, and the younger a woman arrives in the host country, the closer her childbearing choices are to host country patterns (Sobotka 2008 236, 237). For the Netherlands, Joop Garssen and Han Nicolaas (2008) have observed that fertility rates for both Moroccan and Turkish women are falling and the second generations will play a part in the decrease. Like Dutch women, second generation women of immigrant backgrounds are waiting to have children and this second generation resembles native Dutch women. There is a decline in newly arrived Turkish and Morrocan women compared to those who arrived in the Netherlands a few decades ago. Garssen and Nicolaas believe that this is due to declining fertility rates in Morocco and Turkey, the countries or origin (1276, 1275).
In striking contrast to the first generations, the second generations have a completed fertility and mean age at first childbirth that hardly differ from those of native Dutch women. Turkish and Moroccan women in their early thirties have even slightly fewer children than native Dutch women of the same age. The teenage fertility rates of second generation Turkish and Moroccans are likewise comparable to that of native Dutch girls. In terms of fertility, women of the second generation no longer take up a middle position between the first generation and native Dutch women, but resemble native Dutch women much more than their mothers.
Our data indicate that the age at first childbirth, childlessness and family size can change very strongly from one generation to the next. The prevailing western system of social norms and possibilities, for example with respect to female education and labour participation, may therefore have a much stronger effect than the traditional values held by the non-western first generation (Garssen and Nicolaas 2008, 1276-1277). "
http://freedom.yellow-stars.com/islam.europe.NL.htm
Also have a read of http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/10/why-fears-of-a-muslim-takeover-are-all-wrong.html
http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/08/05/myth-of-eurabia-why-europe-isnt-becoming-arab-muslim-outpost.htm
http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/08/05/myth-of-eurabia-why-europe-isnt-becoming-arab-muslim-outpost.htm
Want urls, no problem, but provide them as well and not "jihadwatch".
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_2XNALFhqs62vpCrD3HcasJ
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/international-politics/52155-dispelling-myth-eurabia-newsweek-international.html
These did not appear in the item before so here they are.... I can add a few more pages if you like...
My point is make your arguments but make them sound.
Damien,
Jihad Watch almost always links to real reports from real newspapers, you idiot.
I'm getting sick of your argument by cast aspersion, meaning, you don't like Robert Spencer, so you say, No Jihad Watch.
Be a critical thinker.
If Jihad Watch links to a report, for instance, from a Malaysian newspaper where a group of Muslims get together, led by an Imam, and they burn a Church to the ground for converting apostates, and then Spencer links to a verse in the Koran or Hadith which prescribes death for "spreading mischief in the land", then
SPENCER HAS DONE HIS JOB,
and you have not.
Pastorius two points here and both very much have to do with critical thinking.
The first one is what you have just posted: "It is the number of under age 20 Muslims as a percentage of total population under 20 in cities like Malmo, Hamburg, and Marseilles, that is the problem."
That does not represent invasion, it represents social disfunction and politics. It is a good example of bad immigration progams. Also, the Eurabia Myth is mostly based on an eventual population shfit which it most certainly is not.
The second is based on your comment: " Jihad Watch almost always links to real reports from real newspapers, you idiot."
Since your getting back to name calling, then frankly your a naive fool. Yes linking to reports means that a source is defined, the trouble is that Spencer picks and choses the ones that suit his argument and to be as blunt as can be, the world is a damn big place and does those items represent the totality which is what he argues.
I strongly suggest you read up on the meaning of "contextual abuse". Spencer works from two concepts that if ever put into court would be tossed out instantly by any judge. The first is context - write something that exists, not all of it in its total form, just elements that suit an argument and then point out in defence that "it really existed", which of course that "part" did. The second is by actually supporting the ideals of the most extreme view and calling alternatives as being inferior or not serious. Thus, Spencer takes the approach that only the radical or hard-line view of Islam is the real one and the rest is either not serious or even a bad-Muslim. He actually takes on the role of Wahhabism and Salafi Islam as being the only true Islam.
No, Spencer is an ugly bigot and does so for profit to sell his books and be popular amongst the fringe-community that he wishes to be a leader of.
Damien,
From what I know, the "Eurabis myth" is based primarily upon four streams of thought produced by three authors and 1 collective interpretation of the works of those authors.
1) Bat Ye'or - whose book (Eurabia) the authors of this blog tend to believe is not rigorous in it's methodology, even while it is somewhat rigorous/accuarate in it's predictive quality
2) Bruce Bawer - While America Slept. I think we all agree with Bruce.
3) America Alone by Mark Steyn - I think we all agree with Mark.
4) many articles have been written based upon these books, and many assumptions, dogmas, tropes, myths, and facts, have contributed to a collective belief among the general public for which, it ought to go without saying, WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE.
You write; The second is based on your comment: " Jihad Watch almost always links to real reports from real newspapers, you idiot."
Since your getting back to name calling, then frankly your a naive fool. Yes linking to reports means that a source is defined, the trouble is that Spencer picks and choses the ones that suit his argument and to be as blunt as can be, the world is a damn big place and does those items represent the totality which is what he argues.
I respond: His arguments are well-made. Whether they apply to every situation in the world does not matter. He is responsible for no more than the point he is making. Sheesh. You conflate ideas when you do not want to face reality.
Instead of making large generalized statements like "not Jihadwatch", which apparently you deem to be useless. First off, we never put up posts that say "jihad watch' without a link.
And, when we link to Jihad Watch, we are linking to an article which links to original sources.
The reason we link to Jihad Watch, when we do, is because we agree with his interpretation of events.
Do me a favor. From now on, if you want to criticize Robert Spencer then make a specific criticism and not a general accusation.
Otherwise, do not bring him up anymore.
Ok, so here is a specific criticism which you are leveling at Robert Spencer:
I strongly suggest you read up on the meaning of "contextual abuse". Spencer works from two concepts that if ever put into court would be tossed out instantly by any judge. The first is context - write something that exists, not all of it in its total form, just elements that suit an argument and then point out in defence that "it really existed", which of course that "part" did. The second is by actually supporting the ideals of the most extreme view and calling alternatives as being inferior or not serious. Thus, Spencer takes the approach that only the radical or hard-line view of Islam is the real one and the rest is either not serious or even a bad-Muslim. He actually takes on the role of Wahhabism and Salafi Islam as being the only true Islam.
I respond: First off, from what I know, there is no form of law, logic, or critical theory which is named "Contextual Abuse". If there is, then I am not aware of it, and maybe you could provide links.
However, as I understand the point you are making, it seems to me your argument, itself, is a form of contextual abuse. You are saying
Spencer generalizes from specific circumstances, as if the specific circumstance were the rule, rather than the exception.
Is that a fair characterization of your argument?
" Yes linking to reports means that a source is defined, the trouble is that Spencer picks and choses the ones that suit his argument and to be as blunt as can be, the world is a damn big place and does those items represent the totality which is what he argues. "
This represents the ability to reject any fact as cherry picked in a galaxy of fruit.
A you see fit, based on your own cherry picked facts.
Which is what I thought on day one.
This method of 'argument' renders facts pointless if you can find a SINGLE refuting 'fact'.
At some point today I am going to look at those links.
But it's sunny, we live on a lake, and .... about 1 PM the fruit of the juniper will call.
BTW, there is NO cherry picking of canonical expertise, and this is a point you have TOTALLY ignored in every comment.
Besides the Naqshbandi leader (who believes in doing it by leading exemplary lives) I have mentioned -the vast weight of canonical leadership has indicated the line we here at IBA attack.
And a coffee and a half later ....
During my, now ten years, on arab forums, I have been subjected to the rigors of all sorts of forced debunking.
The most hideous is usually forcing one to try and disprove absurdities by the claimant essentially wondering why even if Goebbels said something, it should not be factually disproved.
And so we come to the critical thinking involved in the sites mentioned before even dealing with the 'cherry picked facts'
DailyBeast/Newsweek are now one and are actually not just pro left but at about the same spectrum point as Huffington, and a little bit less strident than KOS but as politically left as that is.
Newsweek, of course, destroyed itself and was sold for $1. The reason was it;s political agenda which rendered its CHERRY PICKED CONTENT - DULL FOR READERS WHO WANTED ALL THE NEWS.
Neither will produce anything but the kind of story, you Damien II are quoting here.
Moreover what I see is an attempt to debunk the Eurabia myth NOT as I asked, for hard data on muslim population rates declining to identical birth rates of the societies they are in as a FACT ACROSS CULTURES.
Ralph Peters in fact, as Pasto points out is going AGAINST your basic idea, and has been a source of mine for the idea that Europe is ultimately likely to 'solve' this problem in the same old same old. Which is...."Europe is a pigsty of yadda yadda..."
And now Yellow Stars, for which a WHOIS search yields a BRICK WALL of secrecy.
You have rather insultingly and arrogantly asserted that we are paying attention useless blogs around here, and that is PRECISELY what I find this place to be. Like so many crypto reasoners, I wonder if this is not PROJECTION on your part and if we have simply taken you too seriously.
The author of this PARTICULAR 'fact set' lists among her accomplishments ...
" Phi Theta Kappa National honor Society for Two-Year Colleges.Current and Past Associations*
Paralegal Association, Milwaukee Area Technical College*"
And her INTEREST?
"I am a supporter and promoter of an independent European Union that is free from all interference and hegemony from third actors. This chiefly means the of Cold War, US-NATO led “Euro-Atlantic community” – which the EU is still chained to.I also have interest in the Euro-American radical right and Islamophobic extremism. I have a hypothesis that the current strain of Islamophobia infecting America and much of the Western world comes straight from Pim Fortuyn of the 1990s and not entirely due to the September 11 attacks."
Critical analysis?
If this is the source of your opinion, Damien, you are a grade "A" DUPE
You are going to pit a a paralegal with a further electronic degree from HERE and a HUGE axe to grind, and actually IS TRYING TO PROVE THAT ISLAMOPHOBIA IN THE USA IS FROM "Pim Fortuyn of the 1990s" against Roebert Spencer and Bostom?
PUUUULLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZE!
Post a Comment