Reply With QuoteSo basically what you are saying is that you don't give a feck about future generations. Nice!Originally Posted by lardy
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
You quoted me saying 'our day to day lives' and said you were helping me with my guess. That was about us. People alive today won't truly know what day to day life's like in 100 years, and people alive in 100 years won't truly know what day to day life was like today. The bit you specifically quoted and referred to is about day to day lives.
I can't help but notice you weren't this fussy when at least three others used the same timescale in the thread, so I take it as something of a compliment that you particularly want to chat to me, but how about addressing the point? Or is this all a big deflection, in the hope of getting to a new page so primary school level maths errors are forgotten about?
So basically what you are saying is that you don't give a feck about future generations. Nice!
Hey severncity, organmorgan and jderrida. Gluey here reckons you don't give a feck about future generations.So basically what you are saying is that you don't give a feck about future generations. Nice!
Not gonna stand for that, are you?
The main leverage multinationals have on nations is the threat of moving to a lower cost country, they actively use this to reduce regulations, and keep their tax burden down to a laughable level. With one global government they wouldn't be able to shuffle off to a tax haven, or threaten to move to a different country, their main levers will have been taken away
And how about the tarrifs? Which is precisely what Trump is proposing to do, and the globalists are wetting themselves because the moment he does that it's game over.
By 'our' he means us non-muslims I think. That is the container for this entire discussion, us and them, scary stuff.
Ever wondered why Saudi Arabia and Qatar don't take refugees, or permit the free movement of people? Your 'us v the muslims' theory is totally wide of the mark, i.e. you are making it up as you go along.
Last edited by Wales-Bales; 14-02-17 at 16:16.
Great post. I'm still waiting for Vincent to provide a report supporting his contention that Islamists will be in control of the Netherlands in two generations. I'm in for a very long wait.
This thread is littered with people talking about them like they are some other species, they are going to take over etc.
It's like Brexit all over again, anybody who votes to leave the EU must be racist. It's fake news!
The best way to find out how Muslim populations grow is to look at Muslim countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh. In 1950 the population of Pakistan was 38 million compared to 50 million in the UK. In 2011 the population of Pakistan was 174 million. It has increased nearly 5 times within the lifetime of many of us on here. In 1971 the population of Bangladesh was 68 million and now it is 161 million. Muslims like lots of kids. They are not too bothered about a bit of overcrowding during their short stay on earth because they think they will be going to a place in the sky with limitless resources. Look at Egypt. The population was 19 million in 1947 and it was 84 million in 2013.
When it comes to an accurate prediction of Muslim population growth all bets are off. What we know for certain is that their populations will be growing at a much greater rate than other groups and eventually they will be in the majority. Look at this 2010 paper from the University of Leeds which attempts to predict the ethnic balance of the UK in 2050. They have stuffed every formula and population variable you can imagine into their models and yet in their UPTAP-ER model they predict that there will be just under 2.5 million people of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin in the UK in 2050! There are almost certainly more than that here already. If these academics can get it so wrong why should we take someone like Lardarse seriously?
http://www.esds.ac.uk/doc/6777%5Cmrd...rkingpaper.pdf
Last edited by David Vincent; 14-02-17 at 20:42.
So you are admitting to being no better than the people who called all leavers racist? Good to know.
You have made many more predictions in this thread than anyone else.
By comparing these predictions with the 2011 census data:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...le-ks201ew.xls
it's apparent that the report's authors underestimated the growth in the Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnicity populations by a significant amount.
In the case of Pakistani ethnicity, their population in England and Wales in 2001 was 761,000. This was predicted to grow to 1,011,000 by 2011 when in fact the 2011 census figure was 1,124,511.
For Bangladeshi ethnicity the figure was projected to grow from 289,000 to 375,000 when in fact the 2011 census figure was 447,000.
So, over the decade the growth rate for Pakistanis was projected to be 32% but was in fact 47%, and for Bangladeshis the growth rate was predicted to be 30% but turned out to be 54%.
Last edited by severncity; 14-02-17 at 21:34.
No, I am just repeating the liberal mantra.
the ignorance in this thread is astounding.
My post was EXACTLY the same as JDerrida's, it's just that I know that you can't give a percentage increase without saying what the numbers are.
If you read a headline saying 'eating crisps doubles your chances of getting cancer' then you might be shocked and worried. If you read on and find out that the chances go from one in 20 million to one in 10 million, are you still so concerned?
It's the same with that post. The percentage increases look frightening on their own, but do some very very simple maths to get the full picture and it changes.
I didn't see it happen on here. I saw a lot of leavers go on and on about being called a racist, but no one actually doing it.
Interesting theory by the way. How does it explain India's population growth?
As you can see, the Muslim population of India has grown considerably faster than that of any other faith group over the past 70 years, even though India lost tens of millions of Muslim residents to Pakistan (and what would become Bangladesh) during and after Partition.
IMG_0223.jpg
Interesting find. I expect it can be accounted, at least partly, by the phenomenon that smaller numbers will go up'more quickly' in percentage terms than bigger ones (again) but certainly interesting that Islam has risen while Hinduism falls.
Would be good to know how much is down to birth rate and how much to immigration for foreign workers.
Here is another table showing the actual numbers of Muslims at each census in India:
IMG_0225.jpg
I think it is more down to Socioeconomic factors. The Muslim population in india is far poorer than the Hindu Christian population and this is always linked with a higher birth rate. Areas in india with a poor non Muslim population show just as highbirth rate.
If Muslim areas become more wealthy then their birthrate will drop.
This is becoming even more apparent in recent times. Cities like Tehran and Istanbul have a 'western' birth rate despite being majority Muslim. I don't think people are properly taking into account that in western society kids are a massive financial burden.
http://www.dawn.com/news/1203166
There are some interesting points in this article
Given that Muslims in the UK are generally much poorer than other groups then their higher birthrate looks likely to continue, unless there is a big improvement in their economic fortunes.
Posting Permissions