|
Post by cobblers on Feb 2, 2009 16:21:37 GMT
Not answering mkaes you look like you're not answering.
And your emoticon doesn't conceal that.
: )
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Feb 2, 2009 16:28:13 GMT
The most powerful contraceptive is education. As girls stay in education beyond puberty, their fertility drops. This correlates with the demographic transition which shows an inverse co-relation between income and fertilty. Well-off, well-educated British Muslim women will be reduced to the same sad state as their all-white sisters.
|
|
|
Post by cobblers on Feb 2, 2009 16:33:01 GMT
Why would you want to make muslim girls have fewer babies Bertrus?
And are you suggesting keeping them in school until the menopause?
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Feb 2, 2009 16:44:24 GMT
Why would you want to make muslim girls have fewer babies They would want to have fewer babies. It's a result of education and consumerist aspirations.
|
|
VikingHumpingWitch
New Member
"My philosophy in life is keep dry and keep away from children. I got it from a matchbox."
Posts: 8,018
|
Post by VikingHumpingWitch on Feb 2, 2009 17:13:37 GMT
Well-off, well-educated British Muslim women will be reduced to the same sad state as their all-white sisters. What's so sad about being a well-off, well-educated woman in Britain?
|
|
|
Post by cobblers on Feb 2, 2009 17:26:08 GMT
Why would you want to make muslim girls have fewer babies They would want to have fewer babies. It's a result of education and consumerist aspirations. You mean 'It's my opinion that it (having fewer babies) is a result of education and consmurist aspirations'. If that were true you'd expect similar socio-economic groups to have the same number of children regardless of culture. I don't believe that, unless you'd care to bring some evidence to support your (bald) assertion...
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Feb 2, 2009 21:36:03 GMT
You mean 'It's my opinion that it (having fewer babies) is a result of education and consmurist aspirations'. No, I don't mean 'it's my opinion'. It's an established demographic trend. The prima facie evidence is exacty the fact that immigrants from poor countries have higher fertility than the host country eg Pakistan/UK.
|
|
|
Post by cobblers on Feb 2, 2009 21:55:27 GMT
Provide some evidence. Iyt's no use saying 'It'scommon kn owledge' I'm afraid. I'm not saying socio-economic status is irrelevant, just denying it's determinative.
Your silly model has no cultural factor in it apparently.
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Feb 2, 2009 22:09:57 GMT
Your silly model has no cultural factor in it apparently. It's not 'my model'. It's known as the demographic transition and is, actually, common knowledge. It is a transparently applicable explanation for the higher fertility of poor country, low educated immigrants from Pakistan (etc) compared with the UK host country population.
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Feb 2, 2009 22:21:39 GMT
The most powerful contraceptive is education. As girls stay in education beyond puberty, their fertility drops. This correlates with the demographic transition which shows an inverse co-relation between income and fertilty. Well-off, well-educated British Muslim women will be reduced to the same sad state as their all-white sisters. Bertrus this is completely untrue - "As girls stay in education beyond puberty, their fertility drops" This is the time when they are at their fertile peak! Poor people have children too, and quite large families by tradition. Also as you say the most powerful contraceptive is education - again, poorer people struggle with this as their education tends to be inferior compared to people who tend to be more well-off.
|
|
|
Post by vania on Feb 2, 2009 22:46:45 GMT
LIbby you're actually agreeing with Bertrus!
He's stating the (not totally unknown fact) that in many modern industrialised nations, the better off and more well-educated the woman, the less children she tends to have.
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Feb 2, 2009 22:48:11 GMT
This is the time when they are at their fertile peak!
True enough. But there are two meanings of 'fertility'. One is being capable of having children, the other is actually having them.
1)the quality, state, or degree of being fertile; fecundity 2) the birthrate of a given population
I was talking about fertility as measured by the actual number of children a woman has.
Here are the top ten countries for lifetime fertility rate (CIA World Factbook).
Rank Country Total fertility rate (children born/woman) Date of Information 1 Mali 7.34 2008 est. 2 Niger 7.29 2008 est. 3 Uganda 6.81 2008 est. 4 Somalia 6.60 2008 est. 5 Afghanistan 6.58 2008 est. 6 Yemen 6.41 2008 est. 7 Burundi 6.40 2008 est. 8 Burkina Faso 6.34 2008 est. 9 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 6.28 2008 est. 10 Angola 6.20 2008 est.
|
|
|
Post by cobblers on Feb 2, 2009 23:52:41 GMT
It may be a factor, it is not determinative. Otherwise you would expect people in the same socio economic group across different cultures to have the same amount of children.
|
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Feb 4, 2009 3:00:07 GMT
Can't be bothered reading through the thread, but I did read the source article in the Times. Two things that stuck out:
It describes an increase in the number of Muslims and a fall in the number of Christians. It doesn't mention the numbers of athiests and agnostics. For all we know, they are increasing at a faster rate than both, and if so, nothing to worry about.
Second, it states that "while the biggest Christian population is among over-70s bracket, for Muslims it is the under-4s." Sorry, but I do not fear jihadis in nappies. Once they grow up, they'll turn against their parents and become good little semi-secularist consumers, like the rest of us.
|
|
ricklinc
New Member
Nostalgia
Posts: 2,597
|
Post by ricklinc on Feb 4, 2009 8:03:48 GMT
LaLa clinches his nomination for the Golden Ostrich award by burying his head so firmly in the sand that he doesn't notice that people are parking their bicycles in his arse crevice.
|
|
Gort
New Member
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by Gort on Feb 5, 2009 6:14:07 GMT
Muslims are like rabits,,,,,,,(animals),,,,, they only think of the invisable alla and like what we do with live stock (animals) they arrange a shagging fest for trheir off spring (like we do with animals),,and they even kill their offspring if it rejects the arranged mutant (like even animals dont do)
|
|
lala
New Member
Arrgh!! Urrgh!! No!!
Posts: 27,277
|
Post by lala on Feb 6, 2009 9:26:38 GMT
The book I'm reading just now is a history of the 1920s in AMerica. Cleverly, it is called America in the 1920s and is by Geoffrey Perrett. I'm reading it so I can draw wise comparisons between the Depression of the 20s/30s and the current one. But there are lots of interesting comparisons between the social atmosphere of the 20s and today. Back then, for example, they also had an alien minority that was regarded with fear and suspicion. 'Native' (i.e. Anglo-Saxon) Americans were frightened of this minority, whoch was not only ethnically distinct, culturally seperate, spoke a different language, but had a distinct religion. The group in question was Italians. Faced with hostility and demmands to conform, the Italians often reacted negatively, becoming more clannish and isolated: Soem immigrant leaders began to resist, telling the Americanizers what they could do with their unsolicited and parochial opinions. There were immigrant communities that became more, not less, chauvanistic. They boldly flaunted their native costumes, food, dress and speech. The Americanization drive at this juncture turned ugly. It merged with the deportations delirium and the Red Scare.
The hatred of all things foreign reached a pitch of viciousness hard at this distance to credit. But in the coalfields of "Egypt" [the coal mining area of Southern Illinois, Missouri and Kentucky], on the night of August 5, 1920, and all the next day, "hundreds of people laden with clothing and household goods filled the roads leading out of West Frankfort ... Back in town their homes were burning. Mobs bent on driving out every foreigner surged through the streets ... The Italian population was the chief objective." Italians were dragged from their homes, beaten with fists and clubs, stoned and kicked, while their homes were set on fire. The mob raged for three days. Two children were missing and were later found dead. A rumour went around that the Italians had kidnapped them for some sinister, foreign purpose. ( There were fears, similar to those voiced by PK about Muslims, that the Italians would use thier fertility to outbreed the 'native' Americans and take over the country: There was ... another rumour that went back to the Know Nothings of the 1850s, according to which the the birth of a Catholic baby was celebrated by burying a gun and fifty rounds of ammunition beneath the local Catholic Church. When the time was ripe and all the little Catholics had grown up and learned to shoot straight, the guns would be dug up. Catholic revolutionaries would seize power and give the United States up to the Pope.
Robert Coughlan, a Catholic teenager growning up in Kokomo, Indiana, took an interest in the Klan propoganda circulating around town. "The Borgias were an endless mine of material, and their exploits came to be as familiar to readers of the Klan press as the lives of soap opera characters are to modern housewives. Constant readers must have begun to think of them as the Typical Catholic Family of the Renaissance." Half of Kokomo seemed convinced that at any moment the Pope would arrive to claim the United States. And then it happened. Word suddenly spread that "the Pope was finally pulling into town on the south-bound from Chicago to take over. A mob formed and stoned the train." None of this came to pass, of course. Italian immigration tailed off as the international situation changed, and the fertility rate of the immigrants dropped as they made the same choices that the Anglo-Saxons had made - work and money over children. Why should it be any different with the Muslim population? If the majority is under 4 years old, then they will grow up to be very different from their parents. They might modify British culture somewhat, like every other group of immigrants has, but the changes they will experience will be far greater. After all, these subversive Eyeties intent on selling the US of A to the Pope went on to give their hosts pizza, Joe DiMaggio, Rudi Gulliani and Martin Scorcese.
|
|
ricklinc
New Member
Nostalgia
Posts: 2,597
|
Post by ricklinc on Feb 6, 2009 9:51:51 GMT
If that gives you a reason to feel perky and optimistic then go to it and good luck.
Bit of a difference between Catholic wops and muslims though. Don't even think of arguing with me about that because I AM a Catholic wop. You're just an idiot that goes looking in books and on websites for evidence to back up his dimwit opinions. If it doesn't agree with you preformed conclusions you ignore it.
You're also understimating the damage done by multiculturalism. Back in the day immigrants had to integrate. Now they don't. Except in method. Have another look at MPACUK and tell me that muslims aren't after more clout in the UK. And tell us why they want it.
|
|
|
Post by cobblers on Feb 6, 2009 9:58:46 GMT
A facile comparison that unsurprisingly glosses over Islam and its current revivalist fundamentalist phase.
I find it strange Lala, being the scholar you are, that you seek to downplay or dismiss the relevance of Islam. And far from being moderated by the West, as you suggest, young muslims are becoming more not less muslim.
How do you think they will 'modify' British culture?
|
|
|
Post by jonren on Feb 6, 2009 9:58:56 GMT
As the muslim population increases rapidly, do not panic. Even now I am working full out on a final solution.
|
|