Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 27
th, 2014 at 11:16am:
|dev|null wrote on Nov 26
th, 2014 at 2:52pm:
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 26
th, 2014 at 10:09am:
bogarde73 wrote on Nov 26
th, 2014 at 10:03am:
Apparently the authorities have not yet been able to establish what is happening with the money extorted through this halal crap.
It would be safer to assume it is being assigned to a criminal or terrorist use and immediately make its collection illegal.
On that basis, I have to assume that any money going to Catholics is going to child abuse, so we should make that illegal.
Isn't child abuse already illegal? Do you mean we should stop funds going to the Christian Churches and organisations for their failure to prevent it? You have my vote!
I was working on the slippery slope argument, that since we don't know apparently where the halal certification funds go, we shouldnt give them any. By the same token, we don't knwo where Catholic charity/funding goes so we shouldnt give them any,
You shouldn't donate money to any charity if you don't know where it is going. That is why Muslims are so keen to compel people to 'donate'.
polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 27
th, 2014 at 9:57am:
Just so we're on the same page FD:
freediver wrote on Nov 23
rd, 2014 at 3:18pm:
For the same reason I probably buy Halal food. Most of these extortionist fees are applied at the abattoir level, which allows them to squeeze the entire industry. There are a small number of abattoirs, compared to say the number of farmers or the number of retail outlets. This affects prices across the entire industry. Even if you buy the non-halal product, the price will be influenced (increased) by this extortion. That's what barriers to trade do.
Would you care to revise this claim of yours, in view of the fact that you are now saying there can be situations in which businesses will allow profit magins to decrease (as would be the case if an extra production cost was not passed on to the consumer)? Would you agree that in such a situation "the price will *NOT* be influenced (increased)" by this extra cost?
And there is a clear logical flaw in your argument FD, which as a noted person who "thinks for himself" I'm sure you will understand: this is not a simple matter of comparing the price on the shelf with the production cost and concluding that because the former is invariably more than the latter, all costs are therefore passed on to the consumer. No, your argument as quoted above is that "the price will be influenced (increased)" by the extra cost to production. And this is easily refuted by your own admission that there can be situations when profit margins will be "decreased if a benefit in total profits as a result is anticipated". That is the point of contention here: you are attempting to maintain the position that halal certification fees will always result in a higher price for the consumer - at the same time acknowledging the completely contradictory fact that there can be situations in which increased production costs will be absorbed (in the form of decreased profits) if its expected it will result in an eventual increase in profits (such as entering a previously unavailable market). This is in fact the exact argument being used by the industry itself. You call them liars, but in view of the perfectly reasonable basis for such a claim as described above (call it 'thinking for yourself' if you like), and with absolutely no evidence to support your accusation, you don't have a leg to stand on.
Gandalf, the price will always be increased relative to the situation where no fees are required to label a product halal. Given that halal certificates do not actually lower production costs in the way you are hinting with your silly questions, there is no way they can lower prices in an absolute sense.
Furthermore, a company will choose to alter it's profit margins based only on the impact on total profits. It will not do this in an effort to 'absord' a specific cost. Given that it's goal in adjusting profit margins is to maximise total profits, and that total profits musty take total costs into account, it is inevitable that all costs will be passed on. Companies do not adjust the total profits on top of this with some absurd goal of hiding costs in the itnerests of political correctness.
There were several claims on top of this, by both yourself and the spin doctors you quoted, that are misleading or outright lies.
Quote:Yes Baron, and as FD has already established for us by "thinking for himself", diverting government funding = unquestionably sending funds to terrorists.
Do you have a better explanation? I believe "common thieves" was your only other theory. This probably popped into your head when I kept throwing out the term "respected Muslim community leaders".
Quote:One school was. Did the AFIC actually demand the payments or were they donated voluntarily by the school. Was anybody from the AFIC charged?
It was the same guy on the AFIC and the school board, as I recall. As you would expect, it is a fairly small community of "respected Muslim leaders" shifting all this money around.
Forum
Pages: 
Anti-Halal extremists (Read 24920 times)
