European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 663

On February 10 2017 18:51 Dapper_Cad wrote:


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.

native crimes would've happen regardless but refugee crimes are forced upon, are an added bonus.

On February 10 2017 18:46 Silvanel wrote:


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.

On February 10 2017 18:54 Laurens wrote:


But his post clearly said:



Babies count as native so it's ok.

On February 10 2017 18:51 maybenexttime wrote:


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.

On February 10 2017 18:51 Dapper_Cad wrote:


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.

On February 10 2017 19:11 xM(Z wrote:
i totally disagree with that part. there are a lot of predispositions, susceptibilities, traits(yes, even behavioral) coming directly from nature; not everything is nurture as you make it out to be(but that's a different topic).

On February 10 2017 19:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:


So you know how to raise / genetically alter babies so that as adults they are guaranteed to commit zero crimes? Does this wondrous technique have a name?

On February 10 2017 19:15 Dapper_Cad wrote:


So you know how to raise / genetically alter babies so that as adults they are guaranteed to commit zero crimes? Does this wondrous technique have a name?

On February 10 2017 19:17 xM(Z wrote:
first you study if it's heritable ...
you know, instead of assuming things.

On February 10 2017 19:19 Dapper_Cad wrote:


I am assuming that any large sample of human beings of any race/creed/religion will contain individuals that, at some point in their lives, contravene the laws of any given modern nation state. Was this too much?

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.

On February 10 2017 19:25 xM(Z wrote:
it's to vague, pointless to argue. laws differ, people differ, populations differ, environments differs.
unless you have statistics spread across populations, environments, cultures, legal systems ... i'm done here; to many ifs and buts even for me.

On February 10 2017 19:17 xM(Z wrote:
first you study if it's heritable ...
you know, instead of assuming things.

Edit: to keep it on point - you do not change the environment of the refugees(you keep them together) nor do you change their genetics. basically you do nothing and expect different results.

a. Native born populations breed.
b. The results of this breeding grow up.
c. Greater that 0% of these grown up natives commit crimes.

On February 10 2017 19:44 Laurens wrote:


Bro how do you still not get this. Grown up natives are still natives, and we're happy with native crime.
No need to cull any babies because "native crimes happen regardless", that's the starting point of our discussion.

On February 10 2017 19:47 Acrofales wrote:


The mind boggles how anybody can say this with a straight face.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. We're completely fine with crime committed by white people, it's when brown people commit crimes that we should get outraged. Regardless of how much crime brown people commit: any crime committed by a brown person is a crime too many, whereas we're happy with white peoples' crimes.

Or is that not what you were trying to say?

On February 10 2017 19:35 Dapper_Cad wrote:


It's not hard and, ultimately, we're on the same side.

You say, rightly, that we should compare immigrant crimes to zero as any and all immigrant crimes committed add to the total number of crimes in a country (I mean it's not like an immigrant could ever prevent a crime, so we should ignore that possibility).

I agree, I am just willing to make the following reasonable assumptions:

a. Native born populations breed.
b. The results of this breeding grow up.
c. Greater that 0% of these grown up natives commit crimes.

Therefore we need to keep a close eye on native breeding and limit it as and when we can to reduce absolute levels of criminality. We all, of course, desire zero criminality, unless you think some level of criminality is desirable. Is that what you want? Do you want more criminality?

Again, I'm really struggling to see what's confusing about this.

On February 10 2017 19:54 xM(Z wrote:
even if i consider your argument a tangent, on that [b] part:
- nope; native+refugee breeding(maybe controlled in some way) and environmental change would be enough to not have breeding alone as an issue.

@Simberto: - reductio ad absurdum, impracticability doesn't exist when postulating futures.

On February 10 2017 19:54 xM(Z wrote:
even if i consider your argument a tangent, on that part:
- nope; native+refugee breeding(maybe controlled in some way) and environmental change would be enough to not have breeding alone as an issue.

@Simberto: - reductio ad absurdum, impracticability doesn't exist when postulating futures.

[B]On February 10 2017 19:44 Laurens wrote:


Bro how do you still not get this. Grown up natives are still natives, and we're happy with native crime.
No need to cull any babies because "native crimes happen regardless", that's XMZ's starting point.

On February 10 2017 20:14 Simberto wrote:


The problem is that you are using statistics that are utterly useless when investigating what you want to investigate.

What people care about is "What is the chance that someone commits a crime on me". And what you need to look at for that are relative numbers, not absolute numbers. Absolute numbers are mostly an indicator of population size. And of course population size increases when you bring in more people.

This means that refugees increase population size, and thus increase the absolute number of crimes being committed. It is irrelevant how criminal the refugees are. If 100000 don't commit any crimes, but one little boy steals an apple, absolute crime has still gone up. But relative crime has gone down, and thus your chance of being victim of a crime has decreased. It they, on average, commit more crimes than the native population, relative crime has gone up, and your chance of being a victim of a crime has increased (Not even this is sure, because refugees are also more likely victims of crime).

And if you increase the total population through another mean, like for example, reproducing, some of the new humans will commit crimes, and that means that total crime numbers will go up. But relative crime numbers don't have to go up. And those are what is important.

This whole discussion about babies, which you absolutely don't seem to grasp, tries to explain this point to you.

Absolute crime mostly measures population size, and is not important when gouging your individual risk.
Relative crime numbers are what you should care about.