-
Montegriffo
- Posts: 18718
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am
Post
by Montegriffo » Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:44 pm
Montegriffo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:31 pm
DBTrek wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:24 pm
Montegriffo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:19 pm
Way to change the subject DB.
As for ''completely displace my native population with Muslim migrants'' maths is not your subject is it?
5% of the population is Muslim.
Oh really?
Baby names: Is Muhammad the most popular?
. . . Muhammad, the most common spelling given to babies born in 2017, was the 10th most popular name for boys overall.
Oliver topped the 2017 list with 6,259 babies while Muhammad was registered 3,691 times - not including hyphenated names, such as Muhammad-Ali.
If we combine 14 different spellings included in the data we get 7,307 boys, which is more than 1,000 ahead of Oliver.
Variations included Muhammad, Mohammed, Mohammad, Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, Muhamad, Muhamed, Mohamud, Mohummad, Mohummed, Mouhamed, Mohammod and Mouhamad.
However the ONS treats each spelling of a name separately and ranks them according to the number of times that individual spelling appears on birth certificates. . . .
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-45638806
Only 5% of your population you say .. and yet there are more Muhammed (and variants) being born in Britain than any other name? Guess pattern recognition and long term thinking aren't your subjects.
So Muslims nearly always name their sons Muhammed whereas there are is a wide variation in English boys names.
Statistics isn't your best subject either is it?
Derp
607,106 live births in the UK in 2017.
Slightly more boys than girls so easily over 300,000 boys born but somehow 7,000 Mohammeds means Muslims are replacing the native population.
1 in every 42 boys born is named Mohammed.
I'll let you work out the percentage as you need the practice.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
-
SuburbanFarmer
- Posts: 25287
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
- Location: Ohio
Post
by SuburbanFarmer » Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm
First paragraph sounded good. Not sure a POTUS has ever mentioned hammer blugeoning from the Oval before.
-
pineapplemike
- Posts: 4650
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:34 pm
Post
by pineapplemike » Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:47 pm
DBTrek wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:39 pm
Indeed. I'm sure 5% of your population "nearly always" naming almost 1/2 of their offspring Muhammed
i believe it, muslims are all about that dude. they'd name the girls muhammed if they could
lol at the bbc for using a photo of muhammed ali is if he's the reason
-
Montegriffo
- Posts: 18718
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am
Post
by Montegriffo » Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:50 pm
Professor David Voas, an expert in population studies from the University of Essex, told FactCheck: “The story basically is that 2 per cent of baby boys are now called Mohammed. The reason for that is that there is relatively little variation in Muslim names, as opposed to non-Muslim names.
“A higher proportion of Muslims give their male children the name Muhammad, in one variation or another. For non-Muslims, there is a huge range of everything.”
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... d-muhammad
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
-
Speaker to Animals
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
Post
by Speaker to Animals » Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:52 pm
So, when the Great Holy War finally comes, and Americans land on the beaches, it will be an army of men named Jesus against an army of men named Mohammed.
-
Montegriffo
- Posts: 18718
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am
Post
by Montegriffo » Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:55 pm
pineapplemike wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:47 pm
DBTrek wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:39 pm
Indeed. I'm sure 5% of your population "nearly always" naming almost 1/2 of their offspring Muhammed
i believe it, muslims are all about that dude. they'd name the girls muhammed if they could
lol at the bbc for using a photo of muhammed ali is if he's the reason
Ahem, the article used Ali as an example of Muhammed being the most popular name for Muslims because he changed his name when he converted to the faith. Nowhere does it say Ali (the boxer) is the reason boys are named Muhammed.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
-
DBTrek
- Posts: 12241
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:04 pm
Post
by DBTrek » Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:59 pm
Montegriffo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:50 pm
Professor David Voas, an expert in population studies from the University of Essex, told FactCheck: “The story basically is that 2 per cent of baby boys are now called Mohammed. The reason for that is that there is relatively little variation in Muslim names, as opposed to non-Muslim names.
“A higher proportion of Muslims give their male children the name Muhammad, in one variation or another. For non-Muslims, there is a huge range of everything.”
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... d-muhammad
The paragraph that followed directly after your cut:
"“Although the proportion of infants who are born into Muslim families is now something like 9 or 10 per cent – a figure that is either high or low depending on how you see these things – a fairly significant proportion of those get given the name Mohammed.”"
It's just, hahahah ... you know . . . hahah . .. Muslims aren't that imaginative about boys names, dear. That's all. Muslims are only 5% of the population, and only 9% or 10% of infants are being born into Muslim families.
Again, pattern recognition and long term thinking, not your strong suit.
Last edited by DBTrek on Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Montegriffo
- Posts: 18718
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am
Post
by Montegriffo » Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:01 pm
Speaker to Animals wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:52 pm
So, when the Great Holy War finally comes, and Americans land on the beaches, it will be an army of men named Jesus against an army of men named Mohammed.
When I worked on the army training camps there were a lot of Portuguese workers.
Nearly all the men were called Joseph and the women were called Mary.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
-
pineapplemike
- Posts: 4650
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:34 pm
Post
by pineapplemike » Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:02 pm
Montegriffo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:55 pm
pineapplemike wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:47 pm
DBTrek wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:39 pm
Indeed. I'm sure 5% of your population "nearly always" naming almost 1/2 of their offspring Muhammed
i believe it, muslims are all about that dude. they'd name the girls muhammed if they could
lol at the bbc for using a photo of muhammed ali is if he's the reason
Ahem, the article used Ali as an example of Muhammed being the most popular name for Muslims because he changed his name when he converted to the faith. Nowhere does it say Ali (the boxer) is the reason boys are named Muhammed.
thanks fact check, i didn't suggest that they stated it directly, i would argue that typically the article photo reflects the article, yeah? i skimmed the article so give me another fact check but muhammed ali was barely mentioned, if at all
-
Montegriffo
- Posts: 18718
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am
Post
by Montegriffo » Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:06 pm
DBTrek wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:59 pm
Montegriffo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:50 pm
Professor David Voas, an expert in population studies from the University of Essex, told FactCheck: “The story basically is that 2 per cent of baby boys are now called Mohammed. The reason for that is that there is relatively little variation in Muslim names, as opposed to non-Muslim names.
“A higher proportion of Muslims give their male children the name Muhammad, in one variation or another. For non-Muslims, there is a huge range of everything.”
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... d-muhammad
The paragraph that followed directly after your cut:
"“Although the proportion of infants who are born into Muslim families is now something like 9 or 10 per cent – a figure that is either high or low depending on how you see these things – a fairly significant proportion of those get given the name Mohammed.”"
It's just, hahahah ... you know . . . hahah . .. Muslims aren't that imaginative about boys names, dear. That's all. Muslims are only 5% of the population, and only 9% or 10% of infants are being born into Muslim families.
Again, pattern recognition and long term thinking, not your strong suit.
...and after that, it says that birthrates amongst immigrants from less developed countries initially have higher birth rates but they fall to native rates.
Professor Voas told us: “Birth rates have been higher amongst immigrants generally, and perhaps Muslims particularly…the Muslim birth rates converge fairly quickly to the national norms.”
His prediction is that the British Muslim community could eventually grow to make up around 10 per cent of the population, but predictions of much higher percentages are “a bit bonkers”.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.