You’re, like many (if not most) of your compatriots are a bigot who revels in disgusting hate speech. Apparently, you’re also so blinded by your hatred that you don’t even know what you’re babbling about.
The last time the Indian government collected data on the prevalence of polygamy (1961 census), **Hindus actually had a higher rate of polygamous marriage than Muslims:
And in 1947, India and Pakistan were one country. Do you have anything more recent to argue your point ?
Read the source I posted.
"Research carried out by Mallika B. Mistry of Gokhle Institute of Pune (1992), concludes "there is no evidence that the percentage of polygamous marriage (among Muslims) is larger than for Hindus". A comparison of nuptiality patterns for Hindus and Muslims shows great similarity, the incidence of polygamy has been declining among both Hindus and Muslims."
In any case, I think the better question is do you have even a shred of evidence (beyond the baseless, bigoted venom you and your ilk like to spew) to prove otherwise?
Re: Debunking a stereotype about Muslims [split: Muslims No Longer Allowed .]
[quote]
And in 1947, India and Pakistan were one country. Do you have anything more recent to argue your point ?
[/quote]
do you feel there is any reason to believe these percentages have changed very fundamentally since 1961? a percentage difference of 0.2 is not enough to show Hindus are more polygamous than Muslims, but it does show that the prevalence is comparable. that is likely to be still true, regardless of deviations normal in such data.
so? she posted evidence of comparable polygamy rates (the 4 wives stereotype). you post about population growth rate which is irrelevant here.
Try to understand the original post. The original poster was giving perceived reasons for why Muslims might find it difficult to buy a house in Mumbai. You just cannot pick one isolated point (4 wives) which is convenient and beat that to death. Read the whole post (including 10-12 kids) and then respond in totality.
Try to understand the original post. The original poster was giving perceived reasons for why Muslims might find it difficult to buy a house in Mumbai. You just cannot pick one isolated point (4 wives) and beat that to death. Read the whole post (including 10-12 kids) and then respond.
why cant you pick an isolated point and beat it to death? If the post is filled with inane points each isolated in its stupidity, every one of them needs to be picked out, and beaten to death.
Dawn was just reporting on the BJP’s propaganda. I’m sure even you’re aware how those claims have been completely discredited, because the 2001 census included data from Jammu & Kashmir, while the 1991 census did not. Once the data is adjusted for J&K, the growth rate declines to 29%…and you see that the rate of population growth is actually declining faster among the Muslim community than among the Hindus: Muslim growth rate: myth and reality, The Milli Gazette, Vol.5 No.19, MG113 (1-15 Oct 04)
As ravage has already pointed out, this means absolutely nothing in terms of polygamy prevalence.
why cant you pick an isolated point and beat it to death? If the post is filled with inane points each isolated in its stupidity, every one of them needs to be picked out, and beaten to death.
Well, if thats all you can come up with, then ago ahead and have fun beating 'isolated points taken out of context' to death.
If all you wanted to discuss was polygamy prevalence, then you should have edited the original post you quoted to take the reference to ‘10-12 kids’ out.
I know its not convenient to discuss the population explosion part for you, so I will end this debate now.
Well, if thats all you can come up with, then ago ahead and have fun beating 'isolated points taken out of context' to death.
I didnt say context isnt important, just that each point used to make an argument SHOULD be debunked in isolation. That is just sound argumentation. Lets have your context then, specifically for polygamy, and lets see if that helps you fare any better in the discussion :)
clearly you can only argue for some parts of the quoted post, and are having trouble with the specific question of polygamy.
I didnt say context isnt important, just that each point used to make an argument SHOULD be debunked in isolation. That is just sound argumentation. Lets have your context then, specifically for polygamy, and lets see if that helps you fare any better in the discussion :)
clearly you can only argue for some parts of the quoted post, and are having trouble with the specific question of polygamy.
I am not disagreeing with your point about polygamy, but want you to see the whole context (4 wives + 10-12 children) instead of just focusing on whats convenient.
I am not disagreeing with your point about polygamy, but want you to see the whole context (4 wives + 10-12 children) instead of just focusing on whats convenient.
please dont argue so sloppily.
do you understand what is meant by context? Context furnishes additional information about a claim or text regarding its intended meaning. Given that the claim disputed by janab is polygamy, '12 children' does not provide any further information.
The discussion addresses specifically one point. Context might be information such as 'indian Muslims' or 'people in the state of maharashtra' or 'Muslims in low income neighbourhoods'. Not the next stereotype in that long list (which also included goat and chicken ownership, should that also be taken into account)
do you understand what is meant by context? Context furnishes additional information about a claim or text regarding its intended meaning. Given that the claim disputed by janab is polygamy, '12 children' does not provide any further information.
The discussion addresses specifically one point. Context might be information such as 'indian Muslims' or 'people in the state of maharashtra' or 'Muslims in low income neighbourhoods'. Not the next stereotype in that long list (which also included goat and chicken ownership, should that also be taken into account)
Read my post - I am not disputing the polygamy claim. I am arguing around the entire statement (4 wives + 10-12 children) since I disagree with part of that statement. You are just focusing on one part (about polygamy) and not the other one about (10-12 children).
Obviously you have no response to the high birth rate claim, so I will consider this arguement closed.
Read my post - I am not disputing the polygamy claim. I am arguing around the entire statement (4 wives + 10-12 children) since I disagree with part of that statement. You are just focusing on one part (about polygamy) and not the other one about (10-12 children).
Obviously you have no response to the high birth rate claim, so I will consider this arguement closed.
the high birth rate claim is not under discussion here. every discussion on polygamy doesnt need to include birth rates, we've established that one can discuss a single point in a sequence of points in an argument. you suggested that 12 children is additional context, and are unable to say how it is.
like I said, I edited out the remaining part of his long list of stereotypes, which included goat ownership and chickens and only selling to other Muslims and 5 Muslims bringing 15 Muslims and other people not wanting to buy houses vacated by Muslims. Unless you want her to address ALL of those points while talking about polygamy there really is no reason why specifically the children point needs to be argued and not the polygamy point.
but since you are unable to argue specifically the polygamy point on its merits without resorting to deflection, its safe to assume that the point of the thread starter has been made, atleast as far as present audience is concerned.