Andrew Neil and Squeaking Little Shít Owen Jones should settle this like men.

[World's End Stella]

This has never been the case, I'm afraid. Until now, if you mean places like Tower Hamlets, of course.

It was a flippant comment based on something I saw on BBC once, but the point really was that London, and England and pretty much every country, were miles worse off in terms of poverty, health care, infant mortality etc etc a few hundred years ago.

Or do you pine for the days of the Inquisition or the glory years when life expectancy was ~ 40 years of age?

As I said, perspective is important otherwise we might forget how well we really have it.

[Peter]

Of course not. He had Jewish blood, though - just as I have Irish blood. You can't renounce your ethnic heritage - no matter how embarrassing and however much one might like to.

So he wasnt jewish but he was still a jew?

Why do you place such a store on ethnic heritage and so little on cultural, philosophical or spiritual? Why is outlook or belief socast away but technicalities of the blood so cherished? After all, we dont ask somebody their blood type before we decide whether we like them or not.

[Burney]

So he wasnt jewish but he was still a jew?

Why do you place such a store on ethnic heritage and so little on cultural, philosophical or spiritual? Why is outlook or belief socast away but technicalities of the blood so cherished? After all, we dont ask somebody their blood type before we decide whether we like them or not.

I don't place any store on it. I've already said that most concepts of 'race' are scientifically meaningless. However, if we are to use it as a shorthand for certain physical characteristics related to particular geographical locations or tribes, it is undeniable that those things are simply a question of biological genetic inheritance and - as such - immutable. Culture and religious belief, on the other hand, are learned characteristics and relatively easily overcome.

Again, I do not see why you are struggling with this really simple distinction between something one cannot change and something one can. It's making you seem slightly unhinged.

[redgunamo]

So he wasnt jewish but he was still a jew?

Why do you place such a store on ethnic heritage and so little on cultural, philosophical or spiritual? Why is outlook or belief socast away but technicalities of the blood so cherished? After all, we dont ask somebody their blood type before we decide whether we like them or not.

That's simply because, certainly traditionally, most people have no idea what their blood group is.

[Peter]

I don't place any store on it. I've already said that most concepts of 'race' are scientifically meaningless. However, if we are to use it as a shorthand for certain physical characteristics related to particular geographical locations or tribes, it is undeniable that those things are simply a question of biological genetic inheritance and - as such - immutable. Culture and religious belief, on the other hand, are learned characteristics and relatively easily overcome.

Again, I do not see why you are struggling with this really simple distinction between something one cannot change and something one can. It's making you seem slightly unhinged.

It is largely because you have already demonstrated that in this instance, the thing you cant change can actually be changed to a greater or lesser extent. It is confused by the fact that race that you refer to is bound together not by nation or region but principally by faith. Yes, I am struggling to understand how jewish somebody who has renounced or converted faith really is. For example, I think some of my dad's family were jewish. I dont know it, but I think it. It may be in my blood, it may not be. Am I jewish? Does Corbyn hate me?

What I am really struggling with is how you can possibly think this is straightforward...

[Peter]

That's simply because, certainly traditionally, most people have no idea what their blood group is.

Which muddies the water further.

[Peter]

There are very good reasons why a comment such as stating it would have been better had no Muslim ever come to the UK is highly stigmatised and comes with a huge social penalty.

They are much the same reasons why discussing scientifically proven IQ differences across races (blacks lower than whites, Southeast Asians higher than whites, etc) is so radioactive. Both ideas have a historical legacy that none of us should want to revisit - but there remain people who wish to use such ideas to do just that.

The problem, however, is that both ideas have a strong case for being objectively true (when it comes to IQ across races, this is not even open to debate as the science is clear).

Furthermore, both ideas are also highly relevant to hugely important conversations that need to be had either now or in the future about the kind of societies we want to foster.

Which is why it is not always helpful when someone like you comes along and bandies crude words like racism and prejudice around.

You know full well why Burney and I don’t take the same position against any other religious group. If we woke up tomorrow morning and found that it was all a dream and it was in fact fundamentalist Buddhists or Jains whose disgusting belief systems and cultures had pervaded British society, our ire would turn in a split second to them.

And this fact (which I assume you accept) MUST be enough to acquit us of any meaningful charge of inherent discrimination. It is proof that what we object to are ideas - whoever holds them.

Regarding your final point about outdated justifications for bigotry, it has always been a mystery to me why “some of my best friends are xxx” has never been a sufficient counter argument to charges of prejudice. To me there could be no better proof that your prejudice is against ideas not people. But you continue to insist that we are lying or concealing our true feelings And it is this kind of bad faith that means conversations like this are always a dead end .

Firstly, throughout this entire conversation I have not called either of you racist. I have consistently drawn a comparison between prejudice based on race (the anti semitism B accuses Labour of) and prejudice based on faith (the two of you and your muslim baiting). That should make it clearI am not calling you racist- I am however equating your faith-based prejudice with a race-based one. This isnt the same thing.

Secondly, your insistence that it is purely the faith that you despise is horse****. You admit yourself it is the behaviours you despise (the ghettos, therape gangs, etc). These are the behaviours of individuals. Throughout all of our conversations you have held the line that the religion itself, and alone, is responsible for these behaviours. this is the device you both use to justify your prejudice- I dont hate people, I hate their beliefs. It hinges on you proving that the religion is responsible for how these people behave, flagrantlydisregarding the fact that billions of Muslims around the globe believe the same thing and don't behave this way.

B ridicules the notion that anyone could hate judaism, and insists that they simply hate jews- it simply must be the case. they couldnt possibly hate Israel, they couldn't possibly have an issue with US-led zionism, they couldn't possibly have faith-based objections. It is purely andsimply the hatred of individuals based on race and is therefore unacceptable.

I get your objections, I understand why you both think the way you do. But you are applying a double standard here in chucking stones at othersand the distinction, and the argument that separates the individual from heir belief is almost unbearably tenuous.

[Burney]

Firstly, throughout this entire conversation I have not called either of you racist. I have consistently drawn a comparison between prejudice based on race (the anti semitism B accuses Labour of) and prejudice based on faith (the two of you and your muslim baiting). That should make it clearI am not calling you racist- I am however equating your faith-based prejudice with a race-based one. This isnt the same thing.

Secondly, your insistence that it is purely the faith that you despise is horse****. You admit yourself it is the behaviours you despise (the ghettos, therape gangs, etc). These are the behaviours of individuals. Throughout all of our conversations you have held the line that the religion itself, and alone, is responsible for these behaviours. this is the device you both use to justify your prejudice- I dont hate people, I hate their beliefs. It hinges on you proving that the religion is responsible for how these people behave, flagrantlydisregarding the fact that billions of Muslims around the globe believe the same thing and don't behave this way.

B ridicules the notion that anyone could hate judaism, and insists that they simply hate jews- it simply must be the case. they couldnt possibly hate Israel, they couldn't possibly have an issue with US-led zionism, they couldn't possibly have faith-based objections. It is purely andsimply the hatred of individuals based on race and is therefore unacceptable.

I get your objections, I understand why you both think the way you do. But you are applying a double standard here in chucking stones at othersand the distinction, and the argument that separates the individual from heir belief is almost unbearably tenuous.

You think that the desire for muslims to remain among muslims, marry among muslims and breed purely among muslims are nothing to do with Islam and its strictures regarding other faiths? Equally, you think that Islam's attitudes to women and infidel women in particular are nothing to do with Islam?

The direct links between Islam and ALL of these behaviours is blindingly obvious. The fact that you don't want to acknowledge them because the doing so makes you feel uncomfortable is entirely your problem.

[Peter]

You think that the desire for muslims to remain among muslims, marry among muslims and breed purely among muslims are nothing to do with Islam and its strictures regarding other faiths? Equally, you think that Islam's attitudes to women and infidel women in particular are nothing to do with Islam?

The direct links between Islam and ALL of these behaviours is blindingly obvious. The fact that you don't want to acknowledge them because the doing so makes you feel uncomfortable is entirely your problem.

Even if I acknowledge that it doesnt change the fact that what you hate is the behaviour, not the belief. why do you care what someone believes and what gives you the right to attack them for it?

[Burney]

Even if I acknowledge that it doesnt change the fact that what you hate is the behaviour, not the belief. why do you care what someone believes and what gives you the right to attack them for it?

If what they believe leads directly and undeniably to toxic behaviours - as Islam undoubtedly does - I will attack the cause rather than just bemoan the symptom.