Yes we can, Obama!

kuldip nayyar....

give it up already...dontcha know...reality is biased against pakis? besides, you can't rely on numbers to prove anything...what with the well known pro-hindoo origins of the ZERO...

tahmed32#289:

Okay, sir. I let you have the last word.

And I can assure you that I do not consider Islam to be a source of all evil. In fact, my views of sunni Islam are similar to those of two devout Muslim chowkies, Naqshbandi and Urstruly.

Now have a nice weekend.

che guevara: i called it a day a few posts back. :-)

DM: Like I said, you are welcome to your views: i.e., ceteris paribus, you will have fewer children if you are a hindu than if you are a muslim!! And like I said, you are certainly being consistent in your determination to paint Islam as the source of all evil.

And if this is indeed what the Famous Research Institutes of Planet India are saying, then they are welcome to their views too.

akcheema#287:

Have I ever disagreed with you?

I would have joined the Umma and retired to be a master of some dosheza in my pind in Pakistan, if it were not for the pain involved. In any case, I have increased my meat consumption, all that remains is for my karma to bring me to the Ummah (or Ummat as they probably still say in my pind?) in my next janam.

Re: # 285; dost ji

but of course religion is the major factor in determining the fertility rates ... us muslims have to increase the proportions of the "ummatees" in this planet! ... how else do you suppose we'd win if not by sheer "dhakka shahi"? ... and it goes on everywhere from Palestine to Indonesia, maghrib to mashriq and shamal to junoob! how else do you suggest we'd make our "mumliket-e khudadaad" the fourth largest in the world by 2020?

give us some credit please! this is something we ARE good at .. some people will insist there are other factors but those people are recaptured very quickly!

Tahmed yaar DM is PWNING you quite reluctantly, just give up already call it a day yea?

tahmed32:

I am dishonest? Let us see:

I and others have piled evidence upon evidence that shows that religion is a factor in fertility rates and you refuse to accept this. All you do is use words like "communal garbage", "rinky-dinky" institutes, my Indian sensitivities, etc. I want to discuss issues while you are more interested in dealing with my motivations or the motivations of people doing studies.

You say that I have not dealt with these points before. Let me reproduce my post#113 which made the same point that I made in my post#275, so there is nothing inconsistent in my posts.

"The differences in fertility rates are a multi-variate issue. The biggest factor is education, especially that of female education. Even a country such as Bangladesh has dramatically reduced birth rate because of the empowerment of women by NGOs.
But religion too is a factor, after the effect of other variables is controlled. For example, Kerala Muslims have a much lower birth rate than Muslims in other Indian states, yet Muslim birth rate there is higher than that of Non-Muslism.
I was in India a couple of years ago when the country had launched an intensive campaign against polio vaccine. Many Muslims rejected to be vaccinated as a rumour was spread that it was a Hindu conspiracy to control Muslim population."

You say that I rejected your point about cross-country comparisons by questioning your intelligence. I don't know if I questioned your intelligence or not but I definitely regard such comparisons as absurd. And I never said that India was not on this planet: I am quite willing to compare Muslim/Non-Muslim FTRs in Punjab or in West Bengal, but comparing Indian FTR with that of Bosnia or Turkey would be meaningless.

And why call a study communal garbage because it uses religion as a variable? If you go to the link provided by hamidm, you will find that your favourite white institutes are also discussing the religious implications of demographic changes.

TAhmed Sahib:
Are you really that dense? Every one is saying (including HP) that what DM sahib infers from those studies is probably valid. Why you are not getting this? Some past scores to settle?

"and now you say:" should be "and my comments on what you now say:"

DM sahib #280 "I have dealt with those two points, which are reproduced below"

Please be honest. You did not deal with these points before, and simply rejected them by questioning my intelligence in even mentioning cross-country comparison and instead kept piling on the communal garbage of one "famous indian institute" after another in response, and crowned this approach by reminding me of the flag of india planted on the moon. Please leave such jingoistic form of discussion to lesser individuals than yourself.

And I dont recall your writing what you say you are "reproducing" before in response when I raised these points.

and now you say:

1. rest assured that demographers are well aware of income differentials and other aspects when doing inter-country (and inter-temporal) comparisons. no need for reminders from you on this account.

2. You are just playing games here. i.e. you drop your earlier claims implying india is on a separate planet, and say you agree with the global research. But..then you drag back in your the rubbish dished out by the Hindu School of Demography (i.e. cet. par., hindus have fewer children than muslims) anyway!! '

Lets just drop this here discussion here, DM sahib. Like I said much earlier, you are welcome to keep on believing that being a muslim means having more children and being a hindu means having fewer children. The world (or the moon with the Indian flag) wont stop spinning because "famous Indian institutions" tell them to.

Madani saheb:

Your interacts are always illuminating. But the population of West Pakistan itself was 40 million at the start, not of the whole of Pakistan at that time.

I hope you wake up feeling better.

tahmed#277:

I have dealt with those two points, which are reproduced below:

"I asked you to look at inter-country comparisons of muslim countries vs india on fertility rates and you rejected without presenting any reason for the rejection. I presented to you the by now generally accepted global consensus on the factors underlying demographic transition, and you rejected that by throwing the name of yet another indian "research organization" at me that i am supposed to know of (and no, i never heard of this indian doctor ashit or whatever his name is either)."

I did not present those comparisons because differences in socio-economic and cultural factors make those comparisons devoid of any meaning. For example, it makes no sense to compare total fertility rates between India and Saudi Arabia which has a much higher level of education and income than India. But just for your information, TFR in Saudi Arabia, despite higher income and education, is 3.94 as against 2.8 in India.


As for the global research re underlying factors in birth rates, I have been emphasizing those factors from the very beginning. In India itself, Muslim birth rates in Kerala are lower than Non-Muslim birth rates in UP and Bihar, but not vis-a-vis non-muslims of Kerala. And if in India, Muslim level of education and income ever becomes significantly higher than those of non-muslims, this difference would be neutralised at an All-India level as well.

More numbers is not good sign generally.
Generally top class life maintenance is difficult for human or animals. In jungle rabits and dears have great numbers as they are are not able to protect themselves. But number gives strength and spacies survive.
Even among humans rich people have few children. Indira gandhi had only two children as it is hard to take care when children go to usa , or uk for study or exposure to high life. ZAB had only 4 children , he was like Nabab old rich family with thousnads acres of land. As he had to support 4 rich life styles , heard BB has little MG english two seater. What I want to say they can not afford more children due to have exposure to high life and learn ways of elites and due to security problems they can not do real job and there or in native lands also.
I am sure all servants for ZAB and gandhis have each atleast 10 chilren. That is what nature does.
Like in Jungle lions and tigers, leapards , chttah etc lead rich life not working for anybody but themselves and feasting on dears etc boars and other decdacies.(cats survive in millions)
They need good and lot of food, they need big place and areas so they do not breed like deers or rabits.
But those Dear and rabits take final revenge by numbers, all their predators are on way out while their numbers is on rise.
Of all humans are jews are most talented. Few million jews have done far better for world than billions of poor people
of world. Compared to acievements of few jews exceed all goods done by billions. But people hate better things as he feels depressed.Like all dears hate Lions and tigers etc Only group thjeir blood enemies like arabs or even unrelated impovarised masses of ummah wants to they to be pushed in water. Number in long term decides destiny , like few elephant can destroy millions of ants in few steps in long terms elephants will eaten by trillion of ants. Obama is making mistake and appointing emanuel/ a jew and outraging the Ummah , question is he is doing by commission by ommision, people can tell here.
Good night, today is bad day , not feeling good.

#275 as for the three points you now make, you are entitled to deny yourself the benefits of a century of international cross-country experience by emphasizing (as you do) in India as if India is a separate planet where only the pronouncements of "famous Indian Institutes" are valid. I have nothing more to add in this case.

dm #275 "What have I not responded to?"

See the two things I noted in #252. Do any of these sound like "France" to you??

And talking of your "response" on the french experience of the 19th century that i mentioned - dont you think today's Quebec is a bit different the France of the mid-19th century, n'est pas?