Drew J wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:25 pm
There aren’t “too many” immigrants – only, at best, “too many” that are unemployed, which can just as easily be a problem for the natives as well
Which therefore means there ARE too many immigrants.
Actually, it just means that there is too much unemployment.
Drew J wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:25 pmToo many of them have no marketable skills.
… and with little to no socialist government assistance to help acquire them? It still sounds like a management problem. Indeed, Sweden doesn’t even let refugees seek work to begin with unless they know the language first. If the government doesn't even allow them to seek employment, how exactly is their skill level being assessed? Or is the "unskilled" adjective just a stereotypical assumption of immigrants, rather than something that is actually prove true?
Drew J wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:25 pmThere are many tent towns now and garbage and feces in the street.
It’s called homelessness, and it exists in most countries in the world, comprising a wide diversity of people in varying circumstances, albeit with some countries MANAGING it better than others.
Drew J wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:25 pmParis is turning into a shit hole. Literally.
1/8th of France’s population is Muslim, yet they
remain disenfranchised and isolated. What do you suppose happens when 12.5% of a country’s population is isolated and disenfranchised? I think the results speak for themselves, and the blame belongs entirely with the French government more than anyone else.
Drew J wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:25 pmBut don't let facts bother you. You would rather split hairs and play word games.
You would rather oversimplify things, by lazily blaming culture and religion whenever it involves Muslim anti-social behavior. However, the nuances are important, because they have an impact on any solutions that are proposed.
Drew J wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:25 pmOnce again, Drew J does not address the fact that the majority of rapes go unreported in Sweden.
I never denied it. All I'm pointing out is that International man of mystery WON'T EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS. He says it, declares victory, and walks away thinking he has explained anything in detail. LOL. To say this LOGICALLY IMPLIES SOMETHING ELSE. To say this LOGICALLY IMPLIES THERE IS A PHENOMENON. But he won't say WHAT THE PHENOMENON IS.
THE UNCERTAINTY ITSELF is the phenomenon that Drew is looking for. UNREPORTED MEANS “UNREPORTED” = NO HARD DATA TO PROVE/DISPROVE ANYTHING. The only way anyone can get a glimpse of what those stats of the UNREPORTED cases MIGHT look like is through surveys, which can give different results depending on who takes them, and which were already summarized earlier:
Int'l man of mystery wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:45 pmIt is also a statistical fact that MOST rape is perpetrated by individual(s) who the victim is ALREADY ACQUAINTED WITH, which LIKELY make up a DISPROPORTIONATE number of the UNREPORTED cases FOR THAT VERY REASON. Fear, uncertainty, distrust, embarrassment, and the potential social/familial/legal fallout are all dissuading factors when reporting about rape in general, and rape by acquaintances in particular. A lot of those dissuading factors when reporting rape would be mitigated when the rapist is an unknown, especially one with little-to-no social clout.
Therefore, Drew’s assertion that Muslims commit rape at a disproportionate rate in Sweden is UNVERIFIABLE and therefore DUBIOUS, because he is relying ENTIRELY ON THE REPORTED RAPE STATS, with an estimated 80% UNCERTAINTY WITH REGARDS TO THE REST OF THEM.
Drew J wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:25 pmI gave him two options:
His reply:
The concept of unreported rapes, by definition, excludes the reported rapes, which Drew keeps bringing up to support his argument.
AND HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE MAJORITY OF RAPES GOING UNREPORTED ARE DONE BY MAJORITY NATIVE MEN AND NOT IMMIGRANTS? WHY DO REPORTED RAPES INDICATE MUSLIMS ARE CAUSING THE PROBLEM,
BUT UNREPORTED ONES SHOW THE WHITES ARE DOING THE MOST RAPING? HOW DOES IMOM KNOW THIS?
You can't just say that it's more likely because stats show that most unreported rapes indicate that the victim knew the person.
IS THAT SWEDEN STATS OR IS THAT STATS FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY YOU ARE IMPOSING ON SWEDEN WITHOUT LOGICAL OR EVIDENTIAL JUSTIFICATION?
Drew’s “logic” is flawed, as he ignores the 3rd possibility; that rape victims are not reporting rape because it is simply easier and less troublesome for them not to, especially when they have/had some kind of relationship with the perpetrator, which typically accounts for the majority of rapes as well. As already mentioned, THERE IS NO HARD DATA ON THE UNREPORTED RAPES, by definition, BECAUSE THEY ARE UNREPORTED. The POSSIBLE reasons WHY they are unreported,
come from surveys, where we learn that with most of them (or
at least about half), an acquaintance, friend or family member is the perpetrator. So if familial/acquaintance rapes account for at least half the total, yet in the case of reported rapes, they only account for
around 36% of them while reported rapes, rapes by unknowns account for more than 60%, then clearly the stats of the reported rapes are not consistent with the estimated stats of unreported rapes. Also, in the UK,
2/3rds of rape victims knew the perpetrator
Thus, the obvious conclusion is that familial/acquaintance rape is underreported, while bogeyman rape is over-reported. What second-wave feminists defined as “rape culture” is a global phenomenon, and the reasons why most of it isn’t reported in Western countries from North America, to Europe and to Australia, are all the same, which have already been pointed out before, and which all the studies on unreported rapes suggest:
- guilt
- embarrassment
- unwanted repercussions
- fear of retaliation
- not wanting to “relive the trauma”
- distrust with the legal process
- family
- friends
A lot of those reasons don’t exist when the rapist is an unknown, which can explain the discrepancy. Drew ignores the realities of “rape culture”, pretending it to be a “conspiracy theory”, while using his knee-jerk reactionary conclusions to a few sets of stats with sensationalist diatribe as his thesis.
Drew J wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:25 pmUntil, IMOM comes up with some proof that these unreported rapes show whitey is doing more raping to their population, he has no argument/evidence to prove it's all an anti Muslim hoax. Because he failed this first step in my challenge, I do not need to respond to the rest of his garbage. He is playing slippery with words and facts.
This is another cop-out from Drew. In fact, it has been the routine since it was pointed out that most rapes in Sweden go unreported. In fact, most rapes in general go unreported as well. “Rape culture” is global and so are the reasons why most rape victims choose not to report it. Drew continues dismissing the reasons for unreported rapes as a white vs. non-white issue and cops-out when challenged about them. His response to the prospect of the unreported rapes being different than the reported rapes, is that white Swedish women are somehow not reporting rapes by white Swedish men. However, on the flipside, that is just as logical and rational as concluding from his assertion - where non-white, non-Swedish men commit rape at a disproportionate rate to their population size - that white Swedish women are overly-eager to report the slightest infractions (real or perceived) against them as “rape” when committed by non-white, non-Swedish men, i.e. not very logical or rational at all. Then when it comes to the refugee/immigrant/migrant issue, anything from any European country will suffice to paint it all with the same brush. Yet, he hypocritically objects to this sameness principle being applied in a counter-argument against his.
In reality, the only that is “disproportionate” is the so-called “rape crisis” in Sweden, which is
”disproportionate” to reality:
Sweden, the story goes, used to be very peaceful, very safe, very blond. Then it started letting in darker-skinned people. Soon there were news reports of attacks on Swedes. Now, Sweden records the highest incidence of rape in the world.
The Sweden story has become absolutely viral. You've probably read a version in a Facebook post, or heard it in a speech or debate. It is the argument-ender of the intolerant: To make the case against refugees, or immigration, or "Islam," you recount a couple of stories about refugee-camp horrors, some random anecdotes of sex crimes involving brown people in various countries, and then drop the Sweden story.
Behind it you'll find the resurrection of an old, deadly appeal to fear – that people of certain skin colours are natural-born predators who threaten white women. It's a version of lynch-mob logic that happens to appeal to the liberal and tolerant as much as the hateful and intolerant.
And it falls apart as soon as you speak to anyone knowledgeable in Sweden.
"What we're hearing is a very, very extreme exaggeration based on a few isolated events, and the claim that it's related to immigration is more or less not true at all," says Jerzy Sarnecki, a criminologist at Stockholm University who has devoted his career to the study of criminality, ethnicity and age.
Sweden does indeed have far more reported cases of sexual assault than any other country. But it's not because Swedes – of any colour – are very criminal. It's because they're very feminist. In 2005, Sweden's Social Democratic government introduced a new sex-crime law with the world's most expansive definition of rape.
Imagine, for example, if your boss rubbed against you in an unwanted way at work once a week for a year. In Canada, this would potentially be a case of sexual assault. Under Germany's more limited laws, it would be zero cases. In Sweden, it would be tallied as 52 separate cases of rape. If you engaged in a half-dozen sex acts with your spouse, then later you felt you had not given consent, in Sweden that would be classified as six cases of rape.
The marked increase in rape cases during the 2000s is almost entirely a reflection of Sweden's deep public interest in sexual equality and the rights of women, not of attacks by newcomers.
But aren't refugees and immigrants responsible for a greater share of Sweden's sexual assaults?
In a sense. Statistics show that the foreign-born in Sweden, as in most European countries, do have a higher rate of criminal charges than the native-born, in everything from shoplifting to murder (though not enough to affect the crime rate by more than a tiny margin). The opposite is true in North America, where immigrants have lower-than-average crime rates.
Why the difference? Because people who go to Sweden are poorer, and crime rates are mostly a product not of ethnicity but of class. In a 2013 analysis of 63,000 Swedish residents, Prof. Sarnecki and his colleagues found that 75 per cent of the difference in foreign-born crime is accounted for by income and neighbourhood, both indicators of poverty. Among the Swedish-born children of immigrants, the crime rate falls in half (and is almost entirely concentrated in lesser property crimes) and is 100-per-cent attributable to class – they are no more likely to commit crimes, including rape, than ethnic Swedes of the same family income.
What also stands out is that almost all the victims of these crimes – especially sex crimes – are also foreign-born. But for a handful of headline-grabbing atrocities, it isn't a case of swarthy men preying on white women, but of Sweden's system turning refugees into victims of crime.
That is the real Swedish crisis. Refugee shelters are terrible, dangerous places, whoever is in them. When such shelters, then known as displaced persons camps, held millions of Europeans in the 1940s and 1950s, histories show they were at risk of sexual predation and organized attacks against Jewish refugees.
Because otherwise generous Sweden doesn't allow refugees to seek work until they know the language, tens of thousands of people are stuck in these awful places, in similar conditions, or in welfare-dependent netherworlds.
There they become victims of violent crime, victims of economic exclusion and victims of a grotesque, viral story that portrays them as predators, entirely because of their skin colour.
That is the reality of the reported rapes in Sweden; the “disproportionate” figures are largely confined to bogeyman rapes, which are products of poverty and environment, as well as how Sweden records reported rape. The estimates of unreported rape give a more accurate picture of the actual rape proportions, where friends, family members, acquaintances, lovers and exes perpetrate most of them. So unless Drew has any stats showing large numbers of non-white, non-Swedish men among the friends, family members, acquaintances, lovers or exes of white Swedish women, his argument - that non-white, non-Swedish men rape white Swedish women at a disproportionate rate – is an exaggeration of reality that has no merit.
Indeed, even with the reported rapes in Sweden,
the bogeyman rapes have decreased, while the close relationship rapes have increased.
Drew J wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:25 pmNext issue:
So now Drew is saying that they’re “not that great” at being Muslim, apparently back-peddling from saying that they are not Muslim at all. Given the response, it’s obvious why.
Back to refusing to see the forest for the trees. Both types of phrases INDICATE THE SAME BEHAVIOUR. FALLING SHORT OF BEING A DEVOUT MUSLIM.
Both phrases, however, mean completely different things, as not being a Muslim at all is still different from just being a nominal Muslim. The discussion is about Muslim behavior. Unless you want to include it as such, Muslim ‘devoutness’ is not a standard in this discussion.
Drew J wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:25 pmIndeed, those Muslims who drink, fornicate, rape and eat pork can be regarded as “not that great” at being Muslim, if they even profess Islam at all.
THANKS FOR AGREEING WITH ME!
You are actually agreeing with me, since I said that they are still regarded as Muslim, even if they are “not that great” at it.
Drew J wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:25 pmMass murder, violence and destruction are just as sinful, so those Muslim ISIS members who willingly engage in them are also “not that great” at being Muslim either. The DIFFERENCE is that ISIS brands their sins as “Islam”, while those other sinners generally DO NOT.
The difference is that IMOM is lying because those who do engage in alcohol, pork, fornication ALSO TO GO MOSQUE and INTELLECTUALLY & RELIGIOUSLY BELIEVE that Mohammad was a divine prophet from Allah who wrote the Koran. THAT MAKES THEM MUSLIM! No matter how much you want to pretend they aren't just because you don't like their behaviour.
Of course, the only one who ever denied that they were Muslim based on their behavior was Drew himself, to which the response was:
Int'l man of mystery wrote: ↑Sun Apr 29, 2018 12:10 pmTHEY’RE STILL REGARDED AS MUSLIM you imbecile. Going against religious tenants alone ISN’T enough for someone to not be regarded as an adherent or a believer in that religion when they profess it.
Indeed, JUST AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY SAID, despite their sins in Islam, they are still regarded as Muslim. To avoid conceding this point, Drew is attempting to reverse who is arguing what. Unfortunately for him, arguments don’t work that way.
Drew J wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:25 pmDon't worry, I'll get to your clit chopping religion of Islam soon enough. I'm working on a piece...
Then for starters, you might want to learn to differentiate between the prepuce of the clitoris and the clitoris itself. Also, if you aren’t going to reference one credible or authentic Islamic source that clearly and unambiguously sanctions the removal of the clitoris itself and not just its prepuce, then don’t bother. You have no argument otherwise.
