| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
Out of the 150 cases of rape and violent crime in 2016, a SINGLE one was committed by a native Swede. His name is Peter Springare, look it up. 150 rapes and assaults, a single one committed by a native Swede. In a town in which native Swedes make up almost 80% of the population. How does Sweden react? Well he's facing persecution now, obviously, because the reality he talks about reflects the reality of Islam and not the rosy image the left has. | ||
|
FerMi_92
4 Posts
On February 10 2017 07:42 DickMcFanny wrote: Well, the "racist" cop in Sweden who snapped and ranted on Facebook published the crime stats in Örebro, where he worked. Out of the 150 cases of rape and violent crime in 2016, a SINGLE one was committed by a native Swede. His name is Peter Springare, look it up. 150 rapes and assaults, a single one committed by a native Swede. In a town in which native Swedes make up almost 80% of the population. How does Sweden react? Well he's facing persecution now, obviously, because the reality he talks about reflects the reality of Islam and not the rosy image the left has. There don't seem to be lot of articles about this incident apart from breitbart news, some other right-wing outlets and of course swedish articles (which I cant read and I dont trust google translator) but criminal records are quite different from other countries statistics. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372 The Swedish police recorded the highest number of offences - about 63 per 100,000 inhabitants - of any force in Europe, in 2010. The second-highest in the world. This was three times higher than the number of cases in the same year in Sweden's next-door neighbour, Norway, and twice the rate in the United States and the UK. It was more than 30 times the number in India, which recorded about two offences per 100,000 people. On the face of it, it would seem Sweden is a much more dangerous place than these other countries. But that is a misconception, according to Klara Selin, a sociologist at the National Council for Crime Prevention in Stockholm. She says you cannot compare countries' records, because police procedures and legal definitions vary widely. "In Sweden there has been this ambition explicitly to record every case of sexual violence separately, to make it visible in the statistics," she says. "So, for instance, when a woman comes to the police and she says my husband or my fiance raped me almost every day during the last year, the police have to record each of these events, which might be more than 300 events. In many other countries it would just be one record - one victim, one type of crime, one record." So I cloud be very possible that the number of suspect is much lower, but for now nobody knows. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On February 10 2017 06:37 Silvanel wrote: Well actualy this passage "unless this information can be justified as being relevant to the readers‘ understanding of the incident." can easily be interpreted as applying in such cases. I mean ithe information about perpetrator nationality is important while there is ongoing discussion about accepting migrants/refugees. Especially so if You apply right wing optic. I guess the practice in German press and relavant court rulings are different but the literal wording of the guidelines leaves some space. I think the information about nationality or religion and so on is warranted if there is some causal link to the crime or if the crime is directly tied to the group. Say an honour killing or political terrorism, espionage or whatever. Rape or sexual assault is not limited to one religion or one nationality, it's sadly very common crime occurring in any country. That people with certain political goals in mind try to push it into the context of migration does not mean that journalists need to comply with it or that there is a relation so unique or relevant that warrants reporting. | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18424 Posts
On February 10 2017 16:39 DickMcFanny wrote: Well nobody is saying Muslims invented rape or have a monopoly on it. But when migrants are X times as likely to commit violent crimes and Y times as likely to commit theft, voters have a right to know that. [citation needed] | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
Citation for what? Do you know how variables work? | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4769 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
native crimes would've happen regardless but refugee crimes are forced upon, are an added bonus. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4769 Posts
| ||
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
On February 10 2017 17:48 xM(Z wrote: a note here - you people are comparing crimes of refugees vs crimes of natives and i think that's wrong. you should compare crimes of refugees with 0 because they're on top of. native crimes would've happen regardless but refugee crimes are forced upon, are an added bonus. Which is, of course, nonsense. By that warped logic you should equally argue that the 3% employment rate among refugee should be compared to 0, since it comes on top of the absolute number of people employed. Meaningful is only the rate. For which we don't have meaningful figures. On that topic: I would personally be incredibly interested in more detailed cirme statistics, but I can easily see why publishing them would not be a good idea, and why it is my countries policy to not break down crime stats by ethnicity or religion. People are bad with numbers. | ||
|
Yurie
12159 Posts
On February 10 2017 17:57 Silvanel wrote: Thats of course true. But You will find some people arguing that refugees are less likely to commit crimes than natives and therfore a net gain to society. I myself dont agree with such perspective cause i find it too simplistic. I honestly think refugees more likely to commit what we consider crimes because of societal and norm differences. The real issue though is that they are refugees, in many cases from horrible circumstances that will cause psychological issues. This will increase likelihood of different behaviour even more. It is how big this likelihood is and then how and if one should treat it that is the question. I still agree with accepting as many as we can handle since they will be a net gain even with the problems they bring. Work immigration is a totally different question from that. There you might have a decreased chance of crime since they are often people that had the will and opportunity to move, thus being well adjusted in their society. | ||
|
Lugh
36 Posts
Shouldn't you then likewise compare the potential workforce and knowledge refugees bring with them with zero as well because it also is on top of it? So refugees are always a benefit and it is rather a question on how to incorporate them into your society in a more efficient way than a question if you take them in or not. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On February 10 2017 18:03 zatic wrote: those have nothing to do with each other as far as human perception goes. 3% refugee employment means nothing at an individual level(you don't earn more money and prices on goods you buy don't change) but 3% increase in crime rates on top of the 3% native crime rate is perceived as a 100% increase, on a personal level(region/location dependent obviously but true non the less). Which is, of course, nonsense. By that warped logic you should equally argue that the 3% employment rate among refugee should be compared to 0, since it comes on top of the absolute number of people employed. Meaningful is only the rate. For which we don't have meaningful figures. On that topic: I would personally be incredibly interested in more detailed cirme statistics, but I can easily see why publishing them would not be a good idea, and why it is my countries policy to not break down crime stats by ethnicity or religion. also, what you said implies that you are willing to agree with a certain % of crime rate if it nets you a certain % of employment?. ideally sure you'd have none of the crime but since you put them in the same boat ... it looks like one is excusing the other. | ||
|
Laurens
Belgium4558 Posts
On February 10 2017 18:08 Lugh wrote: I agree with zatic. Shouldn't you then likewise compare the potential workforce and knowledge refugees bring with them with zero as well because it also is on top of it? So refugees are always a benefit and it is rather a question on how to incorporate them into your society in a more efficient way than a question if you take them in or not. Additional workforce is a benefit. Additional unemployment is not. Additional crimes is not. Additional cultural influence could be another benefit. Saving hundreds of thousands of people from deplorable life conditions is obviously another big benefit. Before we can claim taking in refugees is always a benefit it would be useful to know more numbers. How many crimes are we talking about? How many refugees are still unemployed X months after arrival? etc. But we don't have these numbers which makes a discussion difficult. Here I disagree with Zatic about publishing them being a bad idea. What do you mean by people are bad with numbers? | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4769 Posts
On February 10 2017 18:03 zatic wrote: Which is, of course, nonsense. By that warped logic you should equally argue that the 3% employment rate among refugee should be compared to 0, since it comes on top of the absolute number of people employed. Meaningful is only the rate. For which we don't have meaningful figures. On that topic: I would personally be incredibly interested in more detailed cirme statistics, but I can easily see why publishing them would not be a good idea, and why it is my countries policy to not break down crime stats by ethnicity or religion. The matter is more complicated than You make it. While i agree that abosolute increase in crimes should not be considered in itself as it is not very usefull alone. For example even if You would bring most peacufull and law abiding people in the world the absolute crime number is bound the increase. However it a well known fact that there is certain treshold of crimes that once reached causes the people and businesses to move away. Thats why You should always consider Your capacity for taking people and ability to distribute them. Something which i think German government neglected. Math is merciless. Even if we assume that migrants/refugees are less likely to commit crimes if You stack them toghter in suffcient numbers it will result in serious increse in crime. X- is crime numbers by locals Y- crime number at which place become shithole a - ratio at which migrants commit crimes b - number of migrants It is obvious that if b is large enough it will be: X+(a*b) > Y | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On February 10 2017 17:48 xM(Z wrote: a note here - you people are comparing crimes of refugees vs crimes of natives and i think that's wrong. you should compare crimes of refugees with 0 because they're on top of. native crimes would've happen regardless but refugee crimes are forced upon, are an added bonus. It is for this reason that I am against human pro-creation. Sure, new borns can't commit crimes, but that's a short sighted view. Many, many babies grow up to commit crimes later in life. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On February 10 2017 18:38 Dapper_Cad wrote: i don't get it; or rather, how does it relates to what i said?.It is for this reason that I am against human pro-creation. Sure, new borns can't commit crimes, but that's a short sighted view. Many, many babies grow up to commit crimes later in life. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4769 Posts
On February 10 2017 18:41 xM(Z wrote: i don't get it; or rather, how does it relates to what i said?. His argument is "Reductio ad absurdum". You said that bringing refugess results in rise in asbolute crime number. Which of course is true. However bringing ANY people even most peacefull will result in rise of absolute crime numbers. So if we assume that reducing ABSOLUTE crime number is our goal the best way would be roduce (or stabilize) population number. So not reproducing. A sound argument to Your oversimplication. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5860 Posts
Refusing to collect such data is a deliberate strategy by politicians favoring such reckless immigration policies. It means their opponents have to rely on anecdotal evidence at best, whose validity can always be questioned. Pretending the problem doesn't exist may be convenient in the short term, but in the long term it leads to radicalization. Ask yourself this question: if migrants from the countries in question are not going to be overrepresented in crime and/or unemployment statistics, why is such data not collected? It would probably be the strongest argument the proponents of such migration policies could have against their opponents. The reason is probably that such statistics would indeed roughly confirm what the opponents are saying, if the statistics from countries that do collect such data are any indication. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On February 10 2017 18:41 xM(Z wrote: i don't get it; or rather, how does it relates to what i said?. I don't get how you don't get it. Immigrants commit crimes as soon as their barbarous feet stumble onto sacred European soil. Babies, of any and all extractions, are exactly the same, it just takes longer. As we oppose unregulated immigration -and should oppose it until the immigration rate reaches zero as they are effectively walking additions to criminal behaviour- so we should oppose any and all pro-creation -and should oppose it until the number of babies born reaches zero as they are effectively crawling additions to criminal behaviour. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
| ||
|
|
Online Event
Classic vs ByuN
herO vs Rogue
Replay Cast
Escore
IntoTheTV X SOOP
Korean StarCraft League
GSL
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Weekly
Afreeca Starleague
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
