jump to last post 1-17 of 17 discussions (252 posts)

The Collapse of Europe

  1. Sam Wickstrom profile image87
    Sam Wickstromposted 2 months ago

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13327180_f520.jpg
    Places like sweden and germany have had a massive increase in rapes and assaults. Not only that but there are many areas in europe where police will not even go, it's basically claimed Muslim sharia jurisdiction. Women have been dyeing their hair black to avoid harassment from muslims. Two vastly different cultures are mixing and it's starting to become a very tense place to be. What do you think is going to happen to Europe?

    1. Live to Learn profile image80
      Live to Learnposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      War. It will degrade to war.

      1. Don W profile image83
        Don Wposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

        Why are you accepting this without evidence? (I'm asking you first because you were the first to respond)

        Aren't going to ask for anything to support this claim? Like the official crime statistics that show the majority of rapes in Sweden are committed by immigrants.

        Someone on a forum says "ABC is true" and you're just going to  blindly accept it? Why?

        Why do people just accept such statements as true with no critical thought whatsoever?

        1. Live to Learn profile image80
          Live to Learnposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

          I think that if people don't learn to coexist peacefully then problems occur. We all used to think of open and free societies as melting pots. Given time we all slowly began to have more and more in common. But, I'm not certain anyone wants to be a part of a melting pot now.

          If that is true, how do you think the indigenous will react to the imminent rise of a minority who represent an immigrant culture radically different from their own? An indigenous peoplewith  long history of a free society? I don't see a peaceful passing of the torch.

          It's different here. We aren't the same as Europeans. We are an immigrant nation without a long history. We now look toward a changing face in our society to a more hispanic majority. But their history is the same as ours. We aren't looking at the prospect of radical change. Simply a changing face.

          1. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

            I'm not asking about the issue of immigration. I'm asking why you have accepted the comment in the opening post as true without asking for any evidence? Do you know it's true? If so, how?

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

              You will not find where I did accept that.  All I pointed out was that women CAN protect themselves, that they need not be raped every day by anyone at all.  Muslims were not mentioned - the closest I came to that was a reference to ISIS taking over the continent; something I do think will happen if the people of Europe allow it.

              1. Don W profile image83
                Don Wposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                Your first response only makes sense if you assume the opening comment is true. It would make no sense without that assumption. And you certainly didn't challenge the poster in any way. You didn't even ask them a question.

                In contrast, Will Apse posted a comment about toddlers and firearms on this thread. Your immediate response was to ask for a breakdown of the statistics that demonstrate his statement.

                Why does Will Apse need to support his statement with statistical evidence, but the the person who created the thread gets a pass? Again, how do you know the statements made in the opening comment are true?

            2. Live to Learn profile image80
              Live to Learnposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

              First, the question asked wasn't directly referencing the poster, if I remember correctly. I responded to that. But the poster is troubling.

              I have googled it. There are plenty of sites discussing it, but I don't know enough about the sites to know if any are trustworthy. There was one with a graph showing rape numbers per country and it did support the poster.

              We do know that there was an attempt to cover up a similar problem in Germany, with the media, the police and the government in collusion. The government did own up to that. So it is difficult to assume that simply because mainstream media is not reporting something  it isn't true.

              But, I don't necessarily see this as a clash with Islam. I think a large percentage of the problem involves immigrants from Somalia. We seem to hear of a larger percentage about Somalian youth here also. I don't know enough about if they are immigrant, first generation,etc to determine what angle we should begin with to try and instead the problem. But I do know it won't help to automatically denigrate the parties claiming there is  problem without exacerbating it. It's easy to scream racism and it certainly makes one feel superior, but it doesn't address the reasons why someone feels that way. I think the fair and reasonable approach is attempting to understand both sides. I honestly don't think we understand why these things are happening. I have seen no attempt, by anyone, to interview and share any insights from the young men doing these things. But to attempt to brush it under the carpet is not the approach I would recommend. If I were in charge. Which I'm not.

              1. mrpopo profile image86
                mrpopoposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                Somalia is 99.8% Muslim. I don't think this particular practice is tied to Islamic doctrine, but I don't find it a coincidence that the countries with the fewest rights for women and with cultures that foster violence, assault and subjugation against women are Islamic.

                1. Live to Learn profile image80
                  Live to Learnposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Good point. I think we would all like to think we could find some other valid reason. Something we could address and correct.

              2. Don W profile image83
                Don Wposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                Your response to the opening comment about Muslims being the cause of a high rate of rape in Sweden was: "War. It will degrade to war".

                That response assumes the comment  is true. But you didn't ask the commenter for any evidence to support their comment. You just assumed it was true. Why?

                You've now Googled it. Why didn't you ask Sam Wickstrom to support his statements with evidence in the first place? Why is it ok to assume a statement is true, when not a single shred of evidence has been offered to support it? I'm interested to know, because I believe this kind of blind acceptance is what lies at the heart of post-truth politics, and the fake news phenomenon.

                1. Live to Learn profile image80
                  Live to Learnposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                  I was responding to the question about two cultures clashing and where I thought it would lead.

                  If that doesn't suit you, you can continue to assume differently. I honestly don't care.

                  1. Don W profile image83
                    Don Wposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                    This thread is 7 pages long. You didn't at any point  (as far as I can see) challenge the statements made in the opening comment or ask for evidence. I'm wondering why. It's astonishing to me that some people are willing to accept Muslim immigrants are responsible for the high rape rate in Sweden, because someone on the internet said so. It's also astonishing to me that some people do not think it's s worth challenging or questioning in any way.

                    If you had asked, you would have discovered (surprise) that there is no reliable evidence that supports the assertion being made in the opening comment about Muslim immigrants. You would have also discovered that even the high rape rate itself is partly due to the way rapes are recorded in Sweden, which has an impact on the statistics. I would link to reliable sources that demonstrate that, but why should I have to support my statements with evidence?

        2. mrpopo profile image86
          mrpopoposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

          The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention stopped releasing data on rape committed by immigrants. The last release covered years 1985-1989, where immigrants made up 53% of all convictions of rape:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden
          https://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/05/08/ … slighet-1/

          It's highly unlikely the trend has reversed. Given that the Swedish authorities actually covered up widespread sexual assault by immigrant gangs because they didn't want to "raise ethnic tensions," and because similar crime rates have increased in Sweden, it's probable that the relative rate has gone up:
          https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr … c-festival

          And yes, Sweden is the rape capital of the West. This article explains why the definition of rape at least partially accounts for the discrepancy (though unless the definition is standardized, we don't know how much higher or lower the rate in Sweden is compared to other countries):
          http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372

          From the above we can make the following conclusions:
          - rapes had been primarily committed by immigrants in the last recorded entry between 1985-1989
          - crime rates in Sweden have increased in the last 40 years
          - the government stopped recording or releasing details of immigrant crime
          - the government has actively covered up widespread sexual assault by immigrant gangs for fear of raising ethnic tensions (perhaps accusations of racism?)
          - Sweden is the rape capital of the West in part due to wider definitions of rape

          Overall, the OP's image is largely accurate.

          As for whether or not rape in Sweden is primarily committed by Muslims, there's no data that suggests this. Ethnicity and religion are not registered by the police in Sweden. And since Muslim immigration prior to the 90s was low, it's unlikely that they made any blip on rape rates for the 1985-1989 data set.

          However, the organized sexual assault gangs targetting young women have been primarily made up of Muslim immigrants, not only in Sweden but in other countries like Germany and the UK (where their governments also covered up the scandals for fear of being accused of racism):
          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ … s-festival
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year' … in_Germany
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham … on_scandal

          That's an entirely new phenomenon for Western societies but is somewhat common in certain Arabic and African countries, and suggests a pattern.

          1. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

            I'm interested to know why some people didn't question the veracity of the claim being made about Muslim immigrants in the opening comment. I want to know why some people automatically assumed it's true.

            As your summary demonstrates, there is no reliable evidence (available from an internet search) that shows Muslim immigrants are responsible for Sweden having a high rate of rape. Yet people commented as if it's a fact. I want to know why people are so willing to accept things without evidence?

            So far, it seems people are willing to forgo any kind of critical thinking if something fits in with their narrative. In contrast, if they are presented with anything that doesn't fit their narrative, then suddenly evidence is becomes very important.

            1. mrpopo profile image86
              mrpopoposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

              Did they automatically assume it to be true? People respond or don't respond to things for a variety of reasons. I can only speak for my own thought process.

              The first claim I challenged was about low birth rates being tied to laziness. I had never heard such a thing, and given what factors I do know that affect birth rates, it sounded too simplistic to be true.

              The second claim was about Jonny making misogynistic comments. I didn't interpret his comments in that way and wanted some clarification.

              The third claim was about toddlers killing more people than terrorists per year in the US. I responded to that not only because it's a flawed comparison, but because it's false as per the very source provided. It doesn't go against a narrative, it goes against common sense. Armed toddlers are not as dangerous as armed terrorists for obvious reasons.

              (I'm surprised you're not criticizing Will Apse on this claim. His post seems to be the closest thing to defending a narrative that I've seen. He's using accidental toddler deaths in an attempt to minimize the intended and directed threat of terrorism, because he doesn't want to offend minority sensibilities. It's wrong on several levels.)

              I didn't challenge the OP's post because I already knew it to be largely true. I knew that Sweden is the rape capital of the West and that their media and government do cover up some of the explanations (in fact, they punish dissenting opinions: http://www.friatider.se/sd-politiker-d- … slamkritik). I knew that there'd been spikes in sexual assaults and rapes by Muslims in Sweden and Germany from events like Cologne and Stockholm. And I knew that there were some Muslim-dominated sectors where police were heavily discouraged from entering and have a degree of lawlessness, in Sweden and a few other European countries.

              I don't think it's entirely far-fetched to assume that it's basically Sharia jurisdiction (which I know exists in the UK), or that women dye their hair black to avoid harassment, or what the exact demographic rates of rape are. The underlying point of problems with shifting cultures is there and exists in several countries with remarkably similar patterns. Some of those aforementioned details might not be entirely accurate or even determinate, but that to me is engaging in pedantry, especially considering that those nations' own governments are suppressing relevant information and punishing dissenting opinion.

              Other than that, were some other claims here which I didn't bother to challenge because they didn't sufficiently interest me, but still did raise my skepticism - Italians not moving out until well in their 40s, for instance. I responded to that comment without challenging that particular claim, but that doesn't mean I accepted it to be true.

              I'd also like to mention that people can entertain hypotheticals without verifying the specific claims. One approach I deliberated on the climate change thread was to ask whether or not it matters if climate change is primarily man-made or natural, assuming that rising CO2 levels are catastrophic. Or, regardless of whether rising CO2 levels are catastrophic, if we shouldn't be focusing our efforts on sustainable, renewable, clean or efficient energy and conservation efforts anyway (i.e. efforts that happen to minimize CO2 emissions).

              1. Don W profile image83
                Don Wposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                The main suggestion in the opening comment is that Muslim immigrants are responsible for the high rate of rapes in Sweden. It was not a hypothetical.

                No evidence was offered to support that suggestion except a meme-type picture. You said: "As for whether or not rape in Sweden is primarily committed by Muslims, there's no data that suggests this." I concur.

                Did people automatically assume the suggestion was true? It appears so, which is why I'm asking why that's the case. People are free to explain (or not).

                My observation is that the claim about Muslim immigrants made in the opening comment supports the worldview of many people (not all) who lean towards the right of the political spectrum.

                It's noticeable that most people in this thread who appear to have either accepted that claim, or failed to challenge it, also tend to lean to the right of the political spectrum (based on my knowledge of their views from this thread and across the forum). I also observed that when someone made a claim that challenged that particular worldview, suddenly evidence became very important, and they were immediately asked for evidence to support their claim.

                Based on those observations (and others around the forum) it appears that lack of evidence for a claim is not deemed important by those who share the worldview that claim supports. But if a claim challenges that worldview, suddenly evidence becomes very important, and a lack of sufficient evidence can be cited as a reason a claim isn't accepted.

                That's a dreadful way to approach any subject.

                People need to decide whether evidence is important or not. If it's not, then anyone (including people with different worldviews) can claim something is true on the grounds that they say it is. If evidence is important, that means applying the same standard to every claim, regardless of whether it supports or challenges a particular worldview. This issue runs to the heart of the post-truth, fake news phenomenon.

                If anyone had bothered to challenge the opening comment, they would have found that the main suggestion about Muslim immigrants in the opening comment is not supported by available evidence. Moreover, they would have found evidence (in the form of various studies) that suggests the way official crime statistics are produced at the national level in Sweden may be a factor in the high rate relative to other countries. The statistical routines and legal definitions in different countries vary to such a degree that meaningful comparisons of such rates between countries is difficult, and must be approached with caution (while still of course still addressing the issue within each individual country).

                Is a degree of critical thinking too much to expect from people discussing important subjects? I don't think it is.

                1. jonnycomelately profile image85
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Thank you both and all for what is turning out to be a much more level-minded discussion.

                  If anything I have said at the outset of this thread could be interpreted as mysogyistic, then I apologise.  It was in no way intended to be.  I am not in any way anti-female, since we are all equal members of the human society.   Most here know of my sexual orientation, but that has nothing to do with it, except that I have never had any sexual interested in women.  Is that mysogyistic?  I don't think so.  If it is, then there must be millions of mysogyistic in this world!

                  No, my main worry at the start of this thread, with full respect to Sam, his contributions to HP being very much valued and usually very well written, was with the perception of and potential for scandal-mongering .  The immediacy of our WWW and the Internet allows for nice juicy stories, full of sensationalist talk and innuendos, to spread dislike, dissension and ultimately hatred for people.  There are individuals/groups,  on all sides of political spectra, who will twist and misrepresent "reports" about anything which promotes sensation.  This is why I initially questioned what had been reported about statistics coming out of Sweden.  I do not suggest those reports are true or untrue; there is no way I can be sure, even after having used the search engine to find more informaton.  I did see some Wikipedia info which indicated a much more complex and understandable picture of what is really happening in Sweden. 

                  Thus, my initial scepticism was, I feel, vindicated.  Yet those who do have biased opinions were very quick to jump on the band wagon and read into my words anything that appealed to their leanings.

                  So, once again,  thank you everyone for bringing the discussion back to a sensible level, better than I was able to do personally.

                  Wishing you a happy and meaningful Festive Season, however you find that appropriate.  Personally, I join with the wonders of nature, tending the chicken and their needs, the earth worms and theirs, the plants that feed us and the friends who feed my sense of oneness with this planet.

                2. mrpopo profile image86
                  mrpopoposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                  The OP did not suggest it as a hypothetical, but readers can choose to respond to it as such. My climate change example entertained several claims without checking or making assumptions about their veracity. It's certainly a welcome habit to request information and analyse it objectively, but it's a difficult and time-consuming practice which I would not expect from the majority of people here, who are looking to have discussions in a more casual and less methodical manner.

                  Even without ascertaining the veracity of information it's possible to engage in productive discussion. I've seen it in these threads from both left-leaning and right-leaning individuals.

                  What was the claim that challenged their worldview, and how did it challenge their worldview? The claim that toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists does not seem to be going against any narrative other than common sense. It does not seem to be tied to right or left-wing worldviews.

                  More importantly, neither toddlers nor terrorists are mentioned in the OP's claims. The "toddlers kill more than terrorists" claim has nothing to do with Muslims being implicated in increasing rape rates. This is a subtle giveaway as to how Will Apse rationalized the discussion. He conflated Muslims with terrorists but castigated others for supposedly doing so, in a thread which was not actually talking about terrorism (Islamic or otherwise) until he brought it up. This suggests his challenge was not based on an earnest seeking of truth, but an attempt to defend his preconceived notions.

                  There is truth to your observation about cognitive bias, but it's not a right-wing or left-wing issue, it's a human issue, and one that's been around for a while.

                  As already mentioned, Will Apse, who appears to be left-leaning, has not actually tried to approach these subjects objectively. He incorrectly made a blunt comparison of accidental toddler shootings with terrorist deaths in the US in an attempt to minimize terrorism as a worldwide threat. He later made an anecdotal comparison to the relatively inactive IRA and conflated the group's religious makeup with their republicanism motivations. He then attempted to assassinate the character of the OP by comparing his "aggressive secularism" to the hatred found in "pure racism." His constant whataboutisms are thinly-veiled deflections of any criticism targeted at Islamic issues.

                  In his mind, criticism of Islam is equal to a "hysterical fear of foreigners all over the world." In his mind, the only people who are afraid of this religion are white people because, as he says it, "white people, when scared, cannot be reasoned with." In his mind, criticism of Islam is a "need to hate Muslims, for whatever reason." As a pardo foreigner who would be punished or even killed for my criticisms of religion were I born into Islamic theocracy, his comments are ignorant, to put it mildly. They are reminiscent of far left-wing narratives and actually validate the image of the OP. Would he make the same comments to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, Lalo Dagach or Maajid Nawaz? Or would he simply dismiss them as "aggressive secularists"?

                  He's not the only one that failed to objectively analyse claims. Credence, who is progressive, also believed the toddler statistics without question and continued the same fallacious type of comparison.

                  Apse conflated criticism of Islam or of a subset of Muslims (i.e. the ones committing sexual assault) to criticism of all Muslims. Similarly, Jonny, who also appears to be progressive, dismissed threats like terrorism because the people who commit those atrocities are a minority.

                  There's also Judi Bee, who corrected the claim that Sweden was revoking their EU application (at least I think she did - I didn't check this claim. It's not relevant to the underlying point of the thread). Given that she characterized navigating this thread as "spitting in the wind whilst wading through bullshit," I'd guess she is left-leaning. Either way, despite supposedly knowing that this thread was comprised of bovine fecal matter, she opted to challenge the largely irrelevant claim about Sweden revoking their EU application, and left the OP's main claim untouched.

                  Much like their ring-wing counterparts, none of these left-leaning folks actually challenged the OP's claims or requested a source - though to give credit where it's due, Credence did speculate on the cultural implications, Judi Bee at least did (supposedly) correct one minor topic within the thread and Jonny had always been skeptical of the original claim. As the latter noted, with a few exceptions only right-winged people seem to be actually addressing this issue - though he, again, tried to minimize the issue by stating they only do so to feel a sense of superiority.

                  What does that leave us with? If you're right about their assumptions (which I don't know that you are), most right-leaning people accepted the claim as truthful and then expanded on its implications. Most left-leaning people ignored the claim altogether. Hardly any better - actually, objectively worse. I can imagine that this is in part to avoid cognitive dissonance, because even without having the specific facts and stats, observation heuristics implicate the claim as at least partially truthful. Three different European countries with thousands of cases of widespread sexual assault by Muslim gangs is damning as is, exacerbated by the fact that these governments attempted to suppress that information.

                  The final bias comes from you. You chose to single out right-leaning Hubbers for not challenging the original claim, but you neglected the series of missteps by the left-leaning Hubbers who did not challenge the original claim and danced around it by bringing up irrelevant or inconsequential points.

                  To the left-leaning people who I've named, I hope you don't take my criticisms too personally. Even you Mr. Apse, who I've gone on for more than I feel comfortable doing. I know that none of you come from a place of ill-will. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's the exact opposite; all of you come from places of compassion. But that in itself is something you ought to carefully temper. The compassion you feel for those you deem to be oppressed is the same compassion that allows a mother bear to mercilessly rip apart any entity that she deems a threat to her cubs. Be very careful not to weaponize it on those you disagree with.

                  Happy Holidays to you all.

                  1. Credence2 profile image85
                    Credence2posted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Happy holidays to you too, Professor. I appreciate being given credit when it is due.

                  2. Don W profile image83
                    Don Wposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Sure readers can choose to respond to a post as they wish. Just as readers can choose to make observations about those responses and express their opinions on them, as I'm doing.

                    Lack of time is always a problem, but even in a casual discussion, people can ask someone to cite a source for the information they are presenting.

                    Anything related to firearms that can be perceived as negative (doesn't matter what it is) tends to be criticized by many people (not necessarily all) who lean to the right of the political spectrum. You would have to ask those people why that's the case, but that's an observation I have made. I can guess at the reason, but it would be just a guess.

                    I don't know Will's intention, so I stand to be corrected by him, but my reading of the exchange is that he thinks this thread is a cynical attempt to use the issue of sexual violence against women, to spread Islamophobia. That seems clear from: "The topic is about spreading Islamophobia with nonsense about women dying their hair black, sharia law etc." Over the course of several comments, he then lays out several arguments to support that conclusion.

                    He seems to be citing the toddlers/firearms stats to suggest there are dangers closer to home which represent more of a risk than Muslim immigrants. The implication being that if this is about risk, then there are plenty of things (like the risk of firearms) that represent more of a danger to people posting here than Muslim immigrants in Sweden.

                    He also refers to the President-elect's boasts about grabbing "pussy". The implication being that it's hypocritical to criticize other groups for misogyny, then electing someone who has made misogynistic comments. Then he highlights the flawed logic of condemning whole groups on the basis of individuals, by saying: "If you're going to condemn Islam as a whole because some Muslims are vile, you need to condemn the US as a whole because some Americans are vile".

                    But I'm not here to defend or argue for Will, because 1) he can speak for himself, and 2) the details of that exchange are not what I'm interested in.

                    While I have no doubt cognitive bias is not unique to those who lean to the right, I repeat that "it's noticeable that most people in this thread who appear to have either accepted that claim, or failed to challenge it, also tend to lean to the right of the political spectrum" (emphasis added).

                    By my observations, the majority of commenters in this thread who lean towards the left (based on their comments here and around the forum) have either recommended caution towards the message (jonnycomelately), challenged something related to the message (Judi Bee), challenged the motivations behind the message (Will Apse), or challenged the main premise of the message (me). Other commenters were either relatively neutral, or I did not have enough information to determine if they lean to the left or the right.

                    As far as I can see, outside of responding to my comments, no one who leans to the right, has advised caution, questioned the motivation of, or challenged the main premise of the message in any way. In contrast jonnycomelately, Will Apse, and I have all been challenged on our responses, and all of those challenges have been from people who lean to the right.

                    Based on these observations, there is a clear tendency towards acceptance of the opening message in this thread, from those commenters who lean towards the right. Those commenters also show a clear bias against comments that challenge the opening message. Those in this thread who have either defended the opening message, or challenged those who have challenged it, have been people who lean towards the right.

                    The facts of the matter are: no one knows whether or not Muslim immigrants are responsible for the high rate of rape in Sweden. There is no available data that allows that conclusion to be drawn. There is also doubt about whether the rate of rape in Sweden is the result of an actual higher likelihood of rape, or simply the differences in the way national crime statistics are compiled between different countries.

                    In other words, the claim made in the opening message, is factually wrong. But instead of criticizing the opening commenter for stating a false claim as a fact, people have criticized those of us who have challenged that false claim. Therein lies the problem.

                    I believe political discourse has become so tribalized that people no longer accept claims based on how factual they are. They accept them based on whether they fit the narrative of their particular "tribe". That tribalism can be seen in the fact that people are increasingly referring to "the left" and "the right" as identities rather than indicators of political opinion. So much so that I deliberate use "people who lean to the left/right" because I'm explicitly referring to people's political opinions, not their identities.

                    I believe this tribalism is at the heart of post-truth politics and the fake news phenomenon. If a story or a claim "sounds" right (fits the narrative) then it's either promoted or at the very least not criticized. When that claim is then challenged, the challenger is then criticized because the criticism is perceived (consciously or not) as an attack on the entire worldview/ tribe rather than on the specific claim. That is the dynamic I believe has just played out in real time on this particular thread. But I think the outcome here is repeatable on any of the politics threads in this forum, or any other forum or comment section around the web.

    2. jonnycomelately profile image85
      jonnycomelatelyposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      With all due respect, Sam, I feel we need to be very cautious about the real motives of that obscure body which calls itself "White Motivation."   Even the suggestions about what is happening socially in Sweden raise my skepticism.

      The people who so far have responded to your post are mostly (but not all) noted for their right-leaning, anti-socialist bias.   It needs more research to find the truths and who is seeding the stories.  I am not making judgement here, just advocating caution.

      1. Live to Learn profile image80
        Live to Learnposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Do you think that 'right leaning anti-socialist' people have more respect for a woman's right to control of her own body or is yours simply a misogynistic statement which should be disregarded as such?

        1. mrpopo profile image86
          mrpopoposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Am I missing something? What statement of his was misogynistic?

          1. Live to Learn profile image80
            Live to Learnposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            I think his first was. Brushing aside women being misused (notice I'm, again, avoiding the word rape) as if only biased and right leaning people would believe it was happening. It shows, to me, a complete lack of concern for the safety of women or, at the least, putting their safety far below political correctness on his list of priorities.

            1. mrpopo profile image86
              mrpopoposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              Maybe I'm being too generous but I don't think that was the intent. I think he was skeptical because of the source - the obscure "White Motivation" group, as he put it. I don't find that entirely unreasonable.

              I did find it unreasonable to suggest that only right-leaning people are drawn to these 'stories.' Not only does he state that right-leaning people seek out these stories to feel superior, but it implies that left-leaning people simply don't bother to investigate these claims if they're perpetrated by minorities.

              Sadly there might be some truth to the latter, given the reactions to Cologne and other similar events. Women were indeed lower in the oppression rankings than the perpetrators.

              1. Live to Learn profile image80
                Live to Learnposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                You are probably right but I still hold placing women low on a list of priorities as misogynistic. I doubt young boys being treated the same would elicit such a ho hum response.

                1. mrpopo profile image86
                  mrpopoposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  How do you figure?

                  1. Live to Learn profile image80
                    Live to Learnposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    How do I figure what? That it's misogyny? What other than an ingrained prejudice would accept behavior patterns against one human while not against another when the only difference is that one is female and one male?

                    Or are you asking why I think men would be more offended if a boy was attacked than a woman? Probably because they would feel more threatened by such a scenario.

      2. mrpopo profile image86
        mrpopoposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        That body is a Twitter page: https://twitter.com/WhiteMotivation

        I'm curious, what do you think are its real motives? I see it as a natural backlash against this sort of thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4syEMiYsgE

        As far as I'm aware, the claim about Sweden being the rape capital of the West is correct, though it's partially attributable to lax definitions of rape. If you find this information to be incorrect, please, don't leave us in the dark.

        It is interesting to note that the only ones who do address these issues are right-leaning, with a few exceptions. Is that because the right are seeding stories? Or is it because the left turns a blind eye to these issues?

        1. jonnycomelately profile image85
          jonnycomelatelyposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Rape is an inexcusable offence against any person, young, old, male or female.  It's not a matter I argue about.

          But it's also an emotive topic, the sort that will be used by those with ulterior motives, who wish to stir up anti- feelings and gain cudos for their dubious causes.  Such tactics are the tools for victimisation, hatred and  branding.  You people love those juicy stories that enable you to feel superior.  Such stories are designed to be devisive and they can twist and distort the truth to suit their motives.

          Just beware.

          1. Live to Learn profile image80
            Live to Learnposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            As a woman, your attitude offends me.

            1. Sam Wickstrom profile image87
              Sam Wickstromposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              Live to learn, can you please elaborate on what is offending you? I'm just confused because you're expressing your feelings without directly relating them to a quote of what he's saying

              1. Live to Learn profile image80
                Live to Learnposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                Certainly. I think he has been quite clear. Concerning your poster about rape, he seems to think since rape is an emotional subject it shouldn't be pointed out what the poster saysand if one does one should assume discussing that fact is somehow wrong. I've googled it and from what I can find the statement is true.  I'm afraid if those are the facts then it is open for discussion without being labeled far right or anti socialist, as if those labels somehow imply the person labeled such is going to be racist or biased.

                I've read of women in Germany being molested and the government attempting to cover it up. Why? All muslims are not rapists. Pointing out that groups of muslims are creating problems is not anti Muslim. It's simply anti putting up with anti social behavior and condoning it in order to create the illusion of being accepting of other cultures. Many cultures can live side by side, in harmony, but only if all cultures respect the others.

                1. colorfulone profile image88
                  colorfuloneposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  I have read several detailed articles (with photos) about Germany's wide spread animal brothels...as if things can't get anymore sickening.  Sounds like raping animals is trending.   They can show animals that have been raped in photos (so sad to see) but its illegal porn if photos show the act of raping animals.  I have never seen such emotionally painful expressions on dogs faces before (I won't go in more detail).   Very, very sad state of affairs if true to any degree. 

                  Of course their government run media won't report it.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image80
                    Live to Learnposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    I'm afraid that's a topic I honestly don't want to discuss.

            2. jonnycomelately profile image85
              jonnycomelatelyposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              Deleted

              1. Live to Learn profile image80
                Live to Learnposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                Quite safe. Although I have no idea what my home town has to do with young European women being groped or molested by youths who don't respect the law of the land they inhabit.

                1. mrpopo profile image86
                  mrpopoposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  Was that comment in another thread? I don't see it anywhere here.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image80
                    Live to Learnposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    What comment? About women being groped and molested? Honestly, it's referencing his poster at the beginning of the thread. Rape is defined so differently everywhere I figured 'groped or molested' would tone it down some since Johnny thinks using the word rape implies ulterior motives.

              2. Live to Learn profile image80
                Live to Learnposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                Quite safe. Although I have no idea what my home town has to do with young European women being groped or molested by youths who don't respect the law of the land they inhabit.

                Edit I clicked on your link which said there is no article on wikipedia by that name. Did you have a point?

                1. jonnycomelately profile image85
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  You are right, sorry about that.  I google "Sexual assault statistics Sweden" and the Wiki site came up.

                  I have calmed down a bit now, so let's get an even playing ground here.  Let's try to unite the world of people, not divide.

                  Yes, Sam, we all need to respect fair play:  white/brown/coffee/pink skin; caucasian, African, Pakistani, Arab, Asian, indiginous.  All human.

          2. mrpopo profile image86
            mrpopoposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Yes, rape is inexcusable against any living creature. Why are you under the impression that we're arguing about the morality (or lack thereof) of rape? It's a terrible thing. Aren't we all in agreement?

            I thought your raised skepticism was about the claim in OP's image - which is perfectly fine to be skeptical about, but you should know that there is evidence to support the claim. In other words, it's not a made-up story.

            I'm aware that this trope has been fabricated in the past for nefarious purposes (lynchings come to mind, though we don't need to look that far back, either). So far, you haven't provided evidence of any nefarious purpose coming from the "White Motivation" Twitter page. Either way, the particular claim of the OP does not seem to be largely fabricated.

            I'm not sure how the situation in Sweden and Europe at large is a juicy story to feel superior about. It's a sad state of affairs that needs open and honest discussion (hopefully from everyone, not just right-winged, anti-socialists).

            If you have any evidence that this or similar stories have been distortions of the truth, I'm more than willing to hear it.

          3. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Yea.

      3. Sam Wickstrom profile image87
        Sam Wickstromposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Jonny I think your caution is reasonable. However, would you question a hispanic or black motivation group? Thats the thing, anytime white people have a sense of pride then they're considered racist or something like that, or intolerant. I don't entirely agree with the white motivation group, but from the research I've done, european natives are definitely being oppressed, somewhat by their own ignorance and tolerance. - And I think the leaning to the right is only going to become more common as people begin to realize that there are many parasites to europe who are not even refugees, but rather going to europe just because they're guaranteed free shit. Thanks for commmenting

    3. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

      Jupiter is the rape capital of the solar system. Anyone who asks why is called a racist.

      Without facts from reliable sources to back them up, the statements you have made are as meaningless as the one above. Only a fool or someone with an agenda would believe such statements without reliable evidence.

      Which are you?

    4. tamarawilhite profile image86
      tamarawilhiteposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

      What makes the fake news narrative so bad is the liberal media is not reporting or under-reporting mass rapes by Muslim migrants, so any reporting of it by other groups gets censored as "fake" because CNN and Snopes don't address it.

      It’s not only Germany that covers up mass sex attacks by migrant men... Sweden’s record is shameful
      http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/its- … -shameful/


      Professionals blamed Oxfordshire girls for their sexual abuse (by Muslim rape gangs), report finds
      https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 … port-finds

      Why Did British Police Ignore Muslim Gangs Abusing 1,400 Rotherham Children? Political Correctness
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerscruto … 77812f5a7c

      German State Media Defends Not Reporting Girl Raped and Murdered by ‘Refugee’
      http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/12 … pe-murder/

      1. Will Apse profile image89
        Will Apseposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

        Rape prevalence among women in the U.S?

        The percentage of women who experienced rape at least once in their lifetime:

        National Violence against Women survey, 1995, found 17.6% prevalence rate
        A 2007 national study for the Department of Justice on rape found 18% prevalence rate

        21.8% of American rapes of female victims are gang rapes

        No one can condone violence against woman but how you use the instances of rape and assault will often have political motivation.

        I reckon I could 'prove' that America is 'evil' with the above stats, (or maybe that Christians are evil) but why would I want to? That ugly side of humanity is widespread.

        If people can avoid dumping their own evils on others, evil can be addressed.

        1. Live to Learn profile image80
          Live to Learnposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

          The problem with your argument is that you are attempting to accuse people of thoughts they have not expressed.

          No one has said, or implied, that all Muslims rape women. And that is the crux of your problem.

          1. Will Apse profile image89
            Will Apseposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

            You obviously did not wade through that garbage above. I can hardly blame you. lol.

            Going to give myself a break for Xmas before I start loathing my fellow humans.

            1. Live to Learn profile image80
              Live to Learnposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

              You appear to already loathe your fellow humans. Perhaps Christmas will give you cause to pause and reflect on why you are quick to find the most negative manner to view them.

        2. mrpopo profile image86
          mrpopoposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

          Are there any instances where the US government and media suppressed rapes because the rapes were committed by American citizens or Christians? Go ahead, I'll wait.

    5. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

      Progressive thinking is dependent on educated reasoning. The move toward one world government is riddled with several ideological and religious stumbling blocks. The cultural divide is what comes into play as well. I suggest we are not ready for this melting pot euphoria many claim will be the result of open borders and open arms. If we are to make any progress we should first educate the world with truthful history for the masses and then maybe negotiate a peaceful orderly commingling of societies to a degree we can all agree with..

      1. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

        This is the heart of the matter for me as well. I think there should be some test cases to determine viability. I propose that some Rosie Odonnell type spend a few years with the Letin Clan or Korowai people.

      2. mrpopo profile image86
        mrpopoposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

        Unfortunately, educated reasoning is in short supply. Our institutions are rife with postmodernist gibberish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE-Hbd5FHzw

        1. jonnycomelately profile image85
          jonnycomelatelyposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

          Mrpopo, how the hell did you happen to come across that collection on YouTube?

          lol

  2. Sam Wickstrom profile image87
    Sam Wickstromposted 2 months ago

    Yea I gotta say that's the most likely scenario, or maybe europeans will just go quietly into the night, as they have been thus far... What are your thoughts on Canada, it's not as severe of a situation, but somewhat similar.

  3. wilderness profile image94
    wildernessposted 2 months ago

    A 9mm in a shoulder holster makes a great equalizer.  Will Europeans figure out that they, not some faceless bureaucrat giving instructions to a cop somewhere, are ultimately responsible for their own safety?  Will they figure out that allowing their government to disarm them and then refuse to protect them was not a wise thing to do?  Will they expand on Switzerland's stand, where nearly every male adult is required to own a gun, and give one to women too (wonder what the rape rate is in Switzerland)?

    Or will ISIS gain a continent?

    1. Sam Wickstrom profile image87
      Sam Wickstromposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      I agree that its definitely a smart move to allow people to be armed, or AT LEAST capable of defending themselves in the case of immediate threats or danger. So yea, armed. I'm glad to hear that at least one nation in the EU isn't fucking up. Thanks for your response, very good point, quite informative!

    2. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

      So Wilderness, on another thread, you not only wanted evidence that climate change is caused mostly by humans, but you even want to know the exact amount that's being caused by humans.

      Now someone posts claims Muslim immigrants are responsible for Sweden's high rate of rapes, and suddenly you automatically assume that claim is true with no evidence at all.

      How does that work?

      How come one claim and all the important details of it need evidence, but the claim in this thread needs none for you to assume it's true?

      Why are you thinking critically about certain claims, but not about the claims being made here?

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

        That post is about self protection, self reliance and responsibility for self.  Although it does mention Islamic takeover (which is absolutely being seen with extreme numbers of immigrants) the whole thrust is about responsibility rather than nanny government.

        To twist is into something else is disingenuous, and to equate a general attitude of governmental style to requiring numbers rather than gross generalizations from scientific reports is just as bad.

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

          The opening post suggests that Muslim immigrants are causing the high rate of rapes in Sweden?

          Why aren't you questioning that suggestion? Why aren't you asking for evidence? Why are you accepting it as fact?

          Do you know the assertion is true? If so, how exactly?

          1. tamarawilhite profile image86
            tamarawilhiteposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

            A 1996 Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention noted that Muslim immigrants from North Africa were 23 times more likely to commit rape than Swedish men.

            http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/23/swede … z4TfqFr1Bm

            And their government has stopped collecting statistics on the racial / religious aspect of rapist vs victim because it made migrant groups look bad. In the past two years, since Merkel invited many "Syrian refugees" to Europe, Sweden's rape rate has gone up 5x over what it was before this influx of young Muslim men.

            1. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

              The issue is that someone claimed Muslim immigrants are responsible for the high rate of rapes in Sweden, but no reliable evidence was offered (or asked for) in support of that claim.

              Despite that, most people responded in a way that suggests they assume the claim to be true. Yet when someone made a claim intending to challenge the narrative being put forward, they were immediately asked to provide evidence, which was then scrutinized (and criticized) in detail.

              So where was the request for evidence about the main claim of the thread? Where was the scrutiny of that evidence? Where was the critical appraisal of that evidence?

              More to the point, where is your scrutiny of that evidence?

              For example:

              1. What proportion of rapes in Sweden over the last 5 years have been committed by immigrants?
              2. What proportion of those immigrants were Muslim?
              3. What recent data (last 5 years) exists to support the claim made about Muslim immigrants in 2016?
              4. If there is no recent data that supports the claim, how do you know it's true?
              5. If methods used for the collection and collation of crime data varies between different countries, can the data used to calculate the rate of rape in Sweden be normalized to account for such variation? If so, has it been?
              6. If it can't be normalized, how can you be confident the comparison between different countries is not the result of those variations in methodology?

              Why aren't you asking the above questions?

              And if you have, but don't have the answers, then what evidence (other than a 20 year old report) is your acceptance of the claim based on? A quote from "dailycaller.com" is not sufficient to condemn a large swathe of people as being more likely to be rapists. Where is the evidence?

  4. calculus-geometry profile image87
    calculus-geometryposted 2 months ago

    The real problem in many European countries is that the native population has simply stopped breeding.  Luring third world immigrants from broken countries in Asia and Africa with the promise of a better life is touted as an altruistic humanitarian effort, but the real reason Germany and other countries take in so many of these people is keep the population numbers stable.   Young native Europeans are lazy, spoiled, smug and don't want to give up their lifestyles and middle class comforts (or move out of their parents' house (men in Italy don't move out until their 40s!)) to raise families.  The immigrants on the other hand still have the normal human instincts to grow up and raise families. They will inherit Europe.

    1. mrpopo profile image86
      mrpopoposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      Do you have any evidence that the main reason Europeans don't have children is because they are lazy and spoiled? That sounds like an oversimplification to me.

      1. Sam Wickstrom profile image87
        Sam Wickstromposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        I agree mrpopo, it's a far more complex issue than just lazy and spoiled kids. Personally I'd say that feminism has given a bit of a shake to traditional family structures and the nuclear family. A bit of a shake is obviously an understatement, but what do you think??

        1. mrpopo profile image86
          mrpopoposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          It's definitely a factor, one that will affect the native population more than the traditionalist immigrant population.

    2. Sam Wickstrom profile image87
      Sam Wickstromposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      That's a very interesting response. I've heard of the decline in birth rates but I was unaware of the somewhat malevolent plan to just replace a fragile populace rather than dealing with the issues surrounding marriage and so on. You say that unlike the young europeans, the refugees and immigrants will inherit europe. But are they leaving anything to inherit??

  5. colorfulone profile image88
    colorfuloneposted 2 months ago

    I understand that Sweden withdrew their application to join the EU sometime after the Brexit, as well as other countries.  They are fighting for nationalism and sovereignty.

    1. Sam Wickstrom profile image87
      Sam Wickstromposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      Thanks for correcting me on that. Of course the issue is more general in terms of geography. Are they really fighting for sovereignty? I saw a video that showed policemen hitting someone for basically saying they dont want anymore immigrants, and then the fact that people can be fired or imprisoned for disagreeing with the state's immigration policies

      1. colorfulone profile image88
        colorfuloneposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        The over-throw has gotten that bad, huh.  Its like a war going on between tyranny and the protection of individual human's freedom, liberty and justice.  The future is not looking pretty in Sweden.  Submit!

        It is only rape when the one who is being raped fights against being raped, or has a gun for personal protection.  If, the victim submits, doesn't fight it, its not rape. 
        Sick it is!  Its demonic...its right from the pits of hell. 

        I've been more focused on the crap like the attempt to over-throw the Electoral College, the election and all that before it for the past year +.   

        People need to be praying, wake up, and stand up against the tyranny.

    2. Judi Bee profile image87
      Judi Beeposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      Sweden hasn't withdrawn application to the EU as it is already a member.

      1. Will Apse profile image89
        Will Apseposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Wasting your time pointing out stuff like that. White people, when scared, cannot be reasoned with.

        1. Judi Bee profile image87
          Judi Beeposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Yep, I know you're right.  Spitting in the wind whilst wading through bullshit.

        2. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Am I hearing this right...because it sounds like you are trying to insight prejudice toward white people, and insult their intelligence? 

          Are you miserable, and want company?  Needy of attention?

          One thing I am not is scared or afraid, I am not a coward. 
          I know who my God is.

      2. colorfulone profile image88
        colorfuloneposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Thanks Judi.  I was going by headlines on Google News.  I should know better than to do that with all the crap news. 

        I was listening to a talk show a couple days ago and one of the speakers mentioned Sweden and said that "Sweden has become basically a total Muslim conclave now".   Do you know if that is true?

        1. Judi Bee profile image87
          Judi Beeposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Did the speaker mean "enclave" rather than "conclave"?  Either way, I don't know.  I do know that an "expert" made similar claims about Birmingham in the UK (as well as other British and European cities, including Sweden) and ended up looking rather foolish.

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … uslim.html

          1. colorfulone profile image88
            colorfuloneposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            I took notes, he used "conclave".  That's what happens when experts or honest people speak out, they are made out to look like fools, and called bogus names, etc.

            * Statistics from 2011 Census show more Muslim children than Christian growing up in Birmingham
            * Of 278,623 youngsters, 97,099 were registered as Muslim compared with 93,828 as Christian 
            * A similar trend has emerged in the cities of Bradford and Leicester
            * Experts said more must be done to ensure that society does not become polarized along religious lines

            Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … z4TaO1JEUL
            2011 Census - six years have gone by...
            The Daily Mail seems to pretty good at reporting real news.

            I listen to Stefan Molyneux and Paul Joseph Watson across the pond in Britain on YouTube.  Both are honest and very, very intelligent investigative reporters, they are superior IMHO.   They get death threats all the time and are smeared by brainwash ideology idiots.  You can judge a person by the company they keep, and by their enemies.  The world needs more of these guys.

            1. jonnycomelately profile image85
              jonnycomelatelyposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              So, 278,623 (total) minus 190,927 Muslims and Christian, = 87,696.  If the Muslim God and the Christian God can get into the ring and have a punch up, to see which one is the greater, there are enough non-aligned children to cheer on the God of their choice. 

              May the best God win!   Could make headlines across the world!

          2. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            http://static.cargurus.com/images/site/2013/10/25/18/02/2014_buick_enclave-pic-7063555920234866603.jpeg

            I think I know why you are confused. I think I recall hearing the same show on radio. Tuneup or Iheatt. There was a commercial about a buick enclave see: photo. Its an all wheel drive, great for taking the kids to school or going to Christmas gatherings or Christmas Markets in inclement weather.To be clear: to and from, as opposed to through or over. 

            And oh yea, the speaker got the commercial/stories mixed up because he was rattled over some breaking international news

        2. jonnycomelately profile image85
          jonnycomelatelyposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Choose your talk shows more carefully.   Choose your  news sources with more discernment.   Clear your mind of preconceptions.  Open up to the beautiful things of this world and discard the ugly, negative, depressing things that the mass media and political biases would have you believe.

          There are so many lovely, intelligent, worthwhile friends to be made amongst Afro Americans, Arabs, Muslims, Atheists, Gays, Tranies, Russians, Vietnamese, Sharmans, Gipsies, Pagans.....as well as a few in the Christian camp.   All open to being good friendly neighbours, willing to say a genuine How Are You Today?   And lend a hand of help when needed.

          Happy Festive Season, everyone.

  6. Credence2 profile image85
    Credence2posted 2 months ago

    So, it begins....

    I spent time in Europe during the late 1970's most of which was quite culturally diverse then,
    particularely the urban areas. The issue is not race, but culture. The Islam radicals and such are incompatible with progressive European government and its democratic traditions and as such they should be be punished or removed for any infraction of the laws. One must be aggressive and prosecute those that break the law and,if newly arrived immigrants, they should be deported. I am saddened to hear of such events among such nice people, as I remember them. Exigent circumstances will force them to embrace the concepts of race prejudice, which when compared to the States was far less encompassing and prevalent. For that, I mourn and have great regret.

    1. Sam Wickstrom profile image87
      Sam Wickstromposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      The idea that concern for a country's cultural stability is racist is ridiculous. It's really a cultural problem, race has practically nothing to do with it. Well.. that's not true, race and IQ, and it gets complex. but the point is that it's not racist to fear cultural incompatibilities and the consequences of that.

      I agree that if they're going to have a government which is supposed to enforce the rule of law, then they need to do that. If not, then they don't even really have a nation anymore.

      And yes, it begins. Yet another failure of humankind to be aware of problems before they arise, and when those problems become blatant, act surprised. Then that surprise, or that fear, can easily be used to ignite war. Well, thanks for posting. Very comprehensive and cogent

    2. Live to Learn profile image80
      Live to Learnposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      Do you honestly believe race prejudice was less in Europe. Don't forget they set the stage for one of the most notorious genocides in history. I don't think 60-70 years completely erases such deep seated prejudice and beliefs in entitlement and superiority. I think one doesn't notice prejudice when it doesn't adversely affect them.

      I think Europe's primary reason (especially Germany) for attempting to display inclusiveness is to try and prove their past has been overcome. But with governments turning a blind eye to these types of atrocities they may find they are setting the stage, again, for their indigenous population to if not support, at least ignore draconian measures to bring the problem under control.

      1. colorfulone profile image88
        colorfuloneposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        It think that is insightful - draconian measures. It seems so ancient in its culture / nature. In modern times I believe its the NWO's,  Marxist / Lenenist / Communist agenda...and Islam is a part of that. 

        Indonesia is about to introduce Draconian Islamic Certification Law. Indonesia is about 87% Muslim.  Obama recently re-visited Indonesia, where he spend most of his younger years.

      2. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Your points are well taken, as a young man during the time of the visit that question was foremost on my mind during 1978. I needed to come away with an accurate assessment.

        I found that more attention was paid to my attitude regarding language and desire to accept their local customs and assimilate. In others words, I had more trouble being 'American' than being Black. The 'Ugly American' phrase was quite real. In the face of that, my skin color was far less relevant. So, while I can't change the color of my skin, I could apply myself in acquiring the language and customs. That was a far fairer way to judge me.

        Racism in Europe always seem more like aberrations, while it the U.S such concerns has been part of this culture's DNA since its founding. When, I visited Germany, I did not get the impression that racial harmony was just on the surface, neither overtly nor subconsciously.  Before the Nazis, Black culture and performances were welcome, particularly in Berlin, while in American there was Jim Crow.

        Are there problems? Yes. The Brits complained to me about the Pakistanis and their ubiquitous, extortionist markets and stores. The Germans complained about the Turks only from the standpoint of their culture and maintaining its integrity. When there are groups being complained about, it had something to do with cultural assimilation, something they either did or failed to do, rather than castigating them just because their skin is the wrong color. I enjoyed a psychological freedom, that I really never knew of at home.  So, PART of it was, for once, that I was not the target. What is it like to be TRULY treated and evaluated like anyone else? This is as close as I got to finding out. Hawaii was a close second....

        Those are my observations, have you ever had the pleasure of paying a visit?

        I trust that the Germans and other European cultures can deal with this scourge while not changing their basic nature, diverse and tolerant.

        1. Live to Learn profile image80
          Live to Learnposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          I just want to make sure you are aware that blacks are not the only minority ever discriminated against in the world because, honestly, I get the impression that this fact is lost on you.

          1. Credence2 profile image85
            Credence2posted 2 months ago in reply to this

            You can be most opinionated and fail to really listen when information is revealed with which you disagree.

            I am not making universal declarations about the nature of racism. But, it does manifests itself in different ways, and at the time of my visit, the difference between how it applied in Europe and my experience in the states were quite real despite your endless attempts to discredit something that you neither understand nor have experienced.

            1. Live to Learn profile image80
              Live to Learnposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              I do understand it. I have lived it here but we have to either move forward or live in the past. I prefer to move forward.

              Either way. As you said it was your desire to immerse yourself in the culture which allowed you to feel accepted. That's probably good advice for current immigrants

  7. Rao Prince profile image59
    Rao Princeposted 2 months ago
  8. adrianusw profile image59
    adrianuswposted 2 months ago

    European leaders must realize their wrong decision to accommodate refugees from the middle east. But, they are seems don't realize  sad

  9. Will Apse profile image89
    Will Apseposted 2 months ago

    This thread offers Osama bin Laden one more little triumph.

    The weak-minded are working themselves into a hysterical fear of foreigners all over the world.

    1. Live to Learn profile image80
      Live to Learnposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      It's interesting that you see it as such. Not all immigrants are averse to the idea of coexisting peacefully. I would think the topic here is those who choose not to.

      1. Will Apse profile image89
        Will Apseposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        The topic is about spreading Islamophobia with nonsense about women dying their hair black, sharia law etc.

        A little stat to perhaps allay your fears:

        American toddlers routinely kill more people than terrorists of all kinds kill in the US.

        So if you want to attack a vulnerable group who cannot fight back, stick it to the under fives.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          "American toddlers routinely kill more people than Muslims kill in the US."

          What is the average death rate for both for the past 20 years? A breakdown by religious affiliation, please, for all 15,000-20,000 of them each year...along with how that affiliation is known.

          1. Will Apse profile image89
            Will Apseposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            You managed to get the uncorrected version of the post. And I only just noticed your reply.

            Settle for toddlers being more of a menace to your health than terrorists of all kinds.

            http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13331453.jpg

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won … fc1900e45e

            CDC are no longer allowed to collect gun related death stats as far as I know, so you will have to dig for other more recent stats.

            Most terror-related deaths are in Muslim countries bearing the brunt of the fight against ISIS et al.

            1. Live to Learn profile image80
              Live to Learnposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              It is a question of intent. You can't blame a toddler for an accident. Not a sane person, anyway. Would you fit that definition?

            2. mrpopo profile image86
              mrpopoposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

              Actually, according to your source toddlers shoot themselves most of the time. Twice did they manage to kill another person in 2015: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won … ?tid=a_inl

              Sorry, terrorists are still more lethal than gun-wielding toddlers. Colour me shocked.

              The logic you present is disturbingly common, but rooted in statistical illiteracy. You're comparing a lethal, but infrequent event (terror attacks - every few months, as of late), with a less lethal, but more frequent event (accidental firings of a gun by toddlers - weekly). At a glance it's persuasive, especially when lacking the relevant details.

              Intuitively, I hope most people realize it's a false comparison. A simple thought exercise should make that clear: would you rather be in a room with an armed toddler, or an armed terrorist?

              1. Credence2 profile image85
                Credence2posted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                Hey, Professor, I think Will's point is spot on. I don't think the stats involve false equivalence at all. I would compare it to being struck with a bolt of lightening versus the national body count due to electrical accidents in the home.

                I am going to be more concerned about the circumstance that is statistically far more likely to occur, than that with the frequency of a 'blue moon'.

                1. PhoenixV profile image79
                  PhoenixVposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Why would anyone equate terrorists with children in the first place.

                  1. colorfulone profile image88
                    colorfuloneposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Just recently some jihadist Muslim parents kissed their little girls (seven and nine) goodbye and sent them into a police station in Damascus, Syria, with explosives under their jackets and remotely detonated them. 
                    The seven year old is thought to have been killed in the blast, and three police officers wounded...from what I have read and heard. 

                    Those kind of people are demonic oculists from a religion of death.

                2. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                  But what was the point?  That when toddlers pull a trigger no one dies, but when (Islamic) terrorists set out to kill they most often succeed?  And that means, somehow, that Islamaphobia is not justified?

                  1. Credence2 profile image85
                    Credence2posted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                    I did not say that islamaphobia is not justified, just let us put the levels of hysteria in proper perspective. I have a better chance of being done in by events associated with proliferation of firearms in this culture than by a terrorist attack. Who is denying that?

                3. Live to Learn profile image80
                  Live to Learnposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Comparing toddlers to terrorist is spot on? 

                  lol

                  I love the contortions some go through to create the illusion of logic in madness.

                4. mrpopo profile image86
                  mrpopoposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                  His point is spot on despite being factually incorrect? Terrorists DON'T kill more people than toddlers (32 is greater than 2), therefore you SHOULD be more concerned about terrorists than toddlers, even ignoring your blatant disregard of the statistical frequencies that make up that number.

                  As I already explained, comparing an infrequent lethal event to a frequent nonlethal event and concluding that the frequent nonlethal event is more dangerous is disingenuous. Whether you personally think it's an appropriate comparison doesn't make it so.

                  As another example, dogs are not more dangerous than terrorists despite killing slightly more people per year (34 in 2010). There are more dogs than terrorists and more dog bites than terrorist attacks (4.5 million dog bites per year). A tiny fraction of those dog bites results in death. Hence, the difference in frequency is what causes the difference in fatal outcomes, but the overall lethality of dogs to US citizens is TINY. Terrorists on the other hand, have high lethality rates.

                  I have no idea why you think deaths by terrorism and deaths by toddlers are comparable to lightning strikes and electrical accidents. Both lightning strikes and electrical accidents are fatal to about 10% of people affected.

                  Lightning: http://origin-www.nws.noaa.gov/om/lightning/odds.shtml
                  Electrical accidents: http://www.ameriburn.org/Preven/Electri … sGuide.pdf (400 deaths, 4400 injuries. 400 / 4800 ~ 10%)

                  Are you suggesting toddlers are as fatal as terrorists, but also attack more frequently?

                  1. Credence2 profile image85
                    Credence2posted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Lets remove the concept of toddlers and discuss the idea of Islamaphobia being ratchet up on the list of hysteria, when compared with the more than plentiful DEATHS from firearms that occur here on a daily basis. So with what should I be more concerned?

            3. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

              That's pretty cool, to give links saying toddlers shot 58 people while terrorists killed 32 and therefore toddlers are more of a menace to your health.  Is that because after you're dead there is no more menace?

              The graph shows 3022 terrorist deaths since 2001 - how many deaths were cause by toddlers shooting people?  Don't you think you should be comparing apples to apples if you're going to make silly comparisons?

        2. Live to Learn profile image80
          Live to Learnposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          I'm not certain what makes you think I'm afraid. Maybe your British superiority complex is raising an ugly head?

          If you think it is acceptable for groups of men to surround and physically sexually accost  women, that would not shock me. And that, from what I understand, is the problem for these young women.

          To be honest, those who refuse to discuss the problem, attempt to understand the problem and search for solutions to the problem appear more islamophobic than those open to discussion.

          This is not a 'Muslim' problem. You are the  one turning it into one.

          1. colorfulone profile image88
            colorfuloneposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Its plain nonsense that some choose to believe.  You are on to it.   

            "Manufactured fears of "Islamophobia" has been weaponized to characterize all criticize of Islam"

            The Truth About Islamophobia -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAAq2EQLBkY

            Islam is not a religion of peace.

          2. Will Apse profile image89
            Will Apseposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Self-confessed 'p**sy grabber' Trump would probably feel right at home with the woman-haters in Muslim culture. The Alt Right who routinely threaten to rape any woman who says something that they do not like, certainly would.

            Misogyny is a problem in every corner of the world.

            1. Live to Learn profile image80
              Live to Learnposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              Well, sure Will. That makes it all ok. Let's get the word out to European women to just grin and bear it.

              1. Will Apse profile image89
                Will Apseposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                No, misogyny is a problem in every corner of the world. If you going to condemn Islam as a whole because some Muslims are vile, you need to condemn the US as a whole because some Americans are vile.

                Anyway, one of our, usually useless, British aristocrats had something usefully superior to say today.

                Prince Charles urged people to remember the story of the Nativity this Christmas, which was about "the fleeing of the Holy Family to escape violent persecution."

                1. Live to Learn profile image80
                  Live to Learnposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  Since I have consistently not condemned Islam as a whole I think that accusation says a lot of negative about you. Not me.

            2. colorfulone profile image88
              colorfuloneposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              That kind of propaganda has been spread by the opposition in only the past year and half or so. That's all it is, lies, lies, lies...and you believe it.  You call white people weak minded?   So impressionable!   There is no reasoning with you.  I called it before...but I gave you the benefit of the double.   Silly me!

              I suppose you believe climate change causes terrorist attacks too.   lol

        3. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/02/04/shining-girls_sq-93718b0b94d4475281883560f59205113e81e9cc.jpg

          Pediaphobia is a real condition. An irrational fear of children. A deep prejudice against the actual innocent. A condition of the mind that can slip even further out of touch with reality. I think it even possible that kind of mind can become quite insane. A total loss of their touch of reality that even mass doses of psychotropics, insulin shock therapy or electric shock therapy, to the brain cannot awaken them from their nightmarish fears.

    2. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 2 months ago in reply to this


      But foreigners good russians bad. Or is it foreigners good putin bad. Obama I heard is transferring undocumented gitmo detainees so that good. I hope they eventually find gainful employment in yemen or uk. Bus drivers or maybe something marketable like idk denistry.

    3. mrpopo profile image86
      mrpopoposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

      Yes, that must be it. It's not that one particular ideology has attacked people in virtually every corner of the globe. It's that the weak-minded, easily scared white people hate foreigners and just can't be reasoned with.

  10. colorfulone profile image88
    colorfuloneposted 8 weeks ago

    The devil's advocate.

  11. Will Apse profile image89
    Will Apseposted 8 weeks ago

    The fact is that if you decide to hate any group or nation, for whatever reason, it is easy to cherry pick some events and stats to justify your hatred.

    If you take a look at the OP's profile you will see that he recently rejected Christianity. Like many who reject their religion, he has taken the aggressive secularist route. His page titled  'Islamophobia is Justifiable' is part of that personal process.

    I happen to find aggressive secularism a lot more acceptable than pure racism but it ain't pretty and it can lead to just as much hatred of perfectly innocent people.

    'Islamophobia is Justifiable' is largely based on the attitudes contained in a 14th Century Islamic text. That is cherry picking of an extreme and rather weird kind, lol.

    1. mrpopo profile image86
      mrpopoposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

      By Jove, he's an aggressive secularist? The horror. Those passive secularists are bad enough, but the aggressive ones might as well be literally Hitler. I've found an article that accurately encapsulates the tyranny of aggressive secularism, highly recommended reading: https://www.theguardian.com/science/bra … ew-tyranny

      And how dare he reference Islamic text when justifying fears of Islam. That's so weird. It's like referencing Nazi text when justifying fears of Nazism. Just absurd.

      I wish people didn't fear this poor, non-dangerous, totally peaceful Religion of Peace™ that only occasionally advocates for the death of apostates and homosexuals and the subjugation of women. What they really should be afraid of are those gun-wielding toddlers from Texas.

      1. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

        Terrorists and toddlers. Aka Vulnerable groups that cant fight back

        1. Will Apse profile image89
          Will Apseposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

          You obviously find it difficult to differentiate between terrorists and Muslims.

          I have survived (so far) four terrorist bombing campaigns. Three of those came courtesy of the IRA in London.

          Luckily, people in the UK have a little spine and did not start hunting down Catholics.

          1. Live to Learn profile image80
            Live to Learnposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

            I suppose what the UK did to the Irish catholics in the not so distant past made them leery of going down that path.

            1. Will Apse profile image89
              Will Apseposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

              They still burn the Pope in effigy on November the 5th every year. It's a grim business, this hate thing. But actual, live Catholics are more or less safe.

              1. Live to Learn profile image80
                Live to Learnposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                For the moment. Britain has a long history of the subjugation and torture of others.

          2. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

            There are less Catholics than muslims if we are equivocating.That makes them even more vulnerable and can"t fight back. You would never talk about Catholic Priests and pedophilia because you would fear being labeled a Catholicphobe. You'd fear being sanctioned. and fined for hate speech. If Catholics came with laws punishable by death if you tried to leave the belief or convert your beliefs and the actual executions were carried out in Ireland, the UK and the USA, you would never look for the definition of dangerous cult on dictionary.com. Youd show that statistically one is more likely to be bitten by a kitten than bitten by a Catholic. Catholics are safer than kittens.

            1. mrpopo profile image86
              mrpopoposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

              lol I really should try to bring my satire to your level. I read somewhere it's one of the better tools for persuasion.

              1. PhoenixV profile image79
                PhoenixVposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                I wouldnt change a thing. I admire your posts. Sharp direct and logical. I actually have wished that we could debate opposing views on something. For the worthwhile challenge.

                1. mrpopo profile image86
                  mrpopoposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                  That's kind of you. I'd be up for a debate on something. Could be a fun intellectual challenge.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image79
                    PhoenixVposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Im wise enough to know when it is wiser not to play. I have to post from phone and somewhat limited too.  Not a spring chicken anymore either. Memory used to be pretty good too. Used to be. Are you a believer? Im remembering no.

          3. mrpopo profile image86
            mrpopoposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

            Why would they start hunting down Catholics? The IRA is based on Irish republicanism, the clue's in the name. Do you have difficulty distinguishing between Irish republicans and Irish Catholics?

            Based on your decades-old anecdote the IRA must be an ever increasing worldwide threat. So let's address it. How many people are they killing on a weekly basis? More than toddlers, perhaps?

            http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/ … 2draft.htm

            Hmm, interesting. 7 deaths in 2016, only 1 of which is confirmed to be related to the conflict. All incidents happening only in the UK.

            Please, help divert more attention to the violence caused by the IRA, it's clearly a significant problem affecting people worldwide.

  12. Ooty Taxi profile image60
    Ooty Taxiposted 8 weeks ago

    http://www.ooty.taxi/  What and who is going to take further steps to avoid this harrasment

  13. colorfulone profile image88
    colorfuloneposted 8 weeks ago

    Try these keywords to search, Don ...
    "Muslim rape epidemic in Sweden"
    "Sweden's Muslim rape problem"
    "How did peaceful Sweden go from being a quiet, low-crime country to being the country with the second-highest incidence of rape in the world?"
    "Are Migrants Really Raping Swedish Women?"

    Its not difficult to do research with keywords.

  14. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks ago
    1. jonnycomelately profile image85
      jonnycomelatelyposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

      Thank you for that link, Kathryn.  It reinforces my original scepticism and call for caution when making any judgments.

    2. mrpopo profile image86
      mrpopoposted 7 weeks ago in reply to this

      I like the article. It's refreshing to see something that's well-written and researched. But I think I spot a limitation. Namely, this conclusion:

      This article will show that according to crime victim surveys, the actual rate of sex crimes has been more or less unchanged in Sweden between 2005 and 2014, despite the fact that immigration has increased during the same time period.

      The author doesn't take into account one major factor: the rate of immigration to Sweden and how much that would affect the overall rate of rape and sexual assault in the total population. Or to put it another way: how many people from a demographic with a high % of criminals would be required to significantly change Sweden's rate of crimes?

      I know that the proportion of immigrants is a fraction of the total population of Sweden, and I know that in any given population the proportion of sex criminals is (usually) a fraction of a percentage, or at very high rates, one or two percentage units. In other words, you'd need a lot of immigrants before you affect the rate of sex crimes in a way that's measurable as a function of the total Swedish population.

      Using available data, I'm going to try and estimate how many immigrants you'd need to change the overall rate of rape and sexual assault from 1 to 2%. (To any mathematicians out there, if I make any glaring math errors or if this entire process is wrong, please correct me.)

      I am assuming that immigrants commit more rapes and sexual assaults than the native population. I make this assumption because data released by BRÅ from 1985-1989 had immigrants and immigrant children making for 53% of rape convictions and being overrepresented in other serious crimes (1). Later data from 1997-2001 shows a similar pattern, with 56% of those suspected for sex crimes being immigrants, 65% if you narrow it down to rape. That's 3.2 and 5.5x the native rate, respectively (2). I believe these are the latest data sets from BRÅ on this topic.

      How much of the 1997-2001 population was committing sex crimes? 0.15% of the native population, 0.23% of immigrant children and 0.49% of immigrants. I don't have the Swedish population numbers for those specific years, but according to Statistics Sweden in 2002 the makeup of the population was around 7 million native Swedes, 1.1 million foreign born immigrants and 0.3 million immigrant children (3). That translates to 10,500 native Swede suspects, 5,390 immigrants and 690 immigrant children suspected of sex crimes, for a total of 16,580 suspected of sex crimes.

      As per your link, in Sweden 1% or less of the total population per year has experienced some sort of sex crime since 2005. The Swedish population in 2001 was 8.9 million, meaning 89,000 people reported being victims of a sex crime that year. That's a ratio of 5.37 victims per recorded suspect, which is more or less in line with what we know of sex criminals having multiple victims.

      We can derive this formula from the above:

      number of sex crime victims = number of recorded sex crime suspects * 5.37 victims per suspect

      How many immigrants would we need to double the rate of reported sexual crime victims from 1 to 2% of the total population? Let's assume the same % of the population suspected of sex crimes as before, 0.49%.

      We're setting the number of victims to 2% of the population, and we're increasing the population of immigrants (variable x). We already have a population of 8.9 million, recorded suspect population of 16,500, and the % of the population suspected of sex crimes as 0.49%, which are set as constants:

      0.02 (8.9 million + x) = (0.0049x + 16,580) * 5.37

      Solve for x:

      0.02x + 178,000 = 0.02631x +   89,034
      88,965  = 0.00631x
      x = 14.1 million

      All things being equal, you'd need another 14.1 million immigrants before the rate of sexual assault victims goes from 1 to 2% of the total population, assuming a % sex-criminal population of .49% and an average victimization rate of 5.37 victims per one criminal. Note that Sweden's population has only increased by 717,000 from 2005-2014, an average rate of 80,000 immigrants per year (assuming the entirety of the population change was due to immigration). In about 2 centuries you'd have the 14.1 million immigrants required to change the rate significantly. Obviously I'm not counting the impact of immigrant children for simplicity's sake.

      Maybe 2% is too high. Play around with the numbers. For a 1.5% rate you'd need 3.9 million immigrants, or half a century's worth of immigration. For a 1.2% rate you'd need 1.2 million from 15 years' worth of immigration, and at that point the author might dismiss the increase as random fluctuation.

      Even if we assume a hypothetical population with a very high percentage of sex-criminals, we'd still need a large number of people to make a significant impact in the overall crime rates. In this fictional population we can bump up the % sex-criminal population to 3% (which is 6x the Swedish immigrant rate and 20x the Swedish native rate) and we'd still need more than 630,000 of that high-risk population to increase the sex crime rates from 1 to 2%:

      0.02 (8.9 million + x) = (0.03x + 16,580) * 5.37

      Solve for x:

      0.02x + 178,000 = 0.1611x +  89,034
      88,965  = 0.1411x
      x = 630,510

      That's a significant population change, about a decade's worth in Sweden's case. As mentioned earlier, from 2005 to 2014 the population of Sweden increased by 717,000. For that population to change the rate of sex crime victimization from 1 to 2% of the total population, the % of sex criminals would need to be 2.75%:

      2% of 9.747 million = (717,000y + 16,580) * 5.37

      Solve for y, where y is the percentage of the added population that are sex criminals:

      194,940 = 3,850,290y + 89,034
      y = 0.0275

      That rate is 5.6x the immigrant Swedish rate and 18.33x the native Swedish rate.

      Obviously this is a simple and limited analysis that makes a number of assumptions (for instance, a static ratio between sex victims and sex criminals). The point remains that you'd still need a large number of people with a very high % of sex criminals immigrating into Sweden to change the overall sex crime rates. While the data suggests that immigrants commit sex crimes at rates of 3.2-5.5x the native Swedish rate, which is significant, they simply can't impact the sex crime rates at their current numbers, assuming a sex crime rate of 0.49%. At most the decade's worth of population increase could increase the sex crime rate by about ~0.1%, which the author dismisses as random fluctuations. You'd need several decades' worth of immigration for the author to acknowledge the increased rate.

      One last thing: the author is missing the latest sex survey rates from 2015. In that year the rate of sex crimes went up to 1.7% from 1% in 2014. From 2010-2015 the rate increased from 0.7% to 1.7% (4). That means the annual number of sex victims increased from 65,646 in 2010 to 167,467 in 2015. I doubt that's something that can be dismissed as random fluctuation, and population increase only accounts for 3000 of those victims.

      Overall, I like the author's methodology, but I think his rationale for this particular conclusion is lacking.

      1) Table 5 under Våldtäkt: https://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/05/08/ … ghet-1.pdf

      2) Table 11 under SEXUALBROTT and Våldtäkt: https://www.bra.se/download/18.cba82f71 … landet.pdf

      3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigrati … 2-2011.jpg

      4) https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statis … t/ntu.html

  15. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 7 weeks ago

    My favorite part of that site is : the moral of the story is that you should not get your information about crime statistics from shady blogs ..

    Says the worpress blog.


    It seems to be the case that information is being suppressed. There seems to be a reason that information is still being supprressed. I base my conclusion on that continued omission. If something has to be hidden, it warrants suspicion. So I gotta choice. Err on the side of caution and hurt the PC feelings of a broad group, or validate the danger women might be in . I gotta stand by the women.

  16. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 7 weeks ago

    I think the onus is upon the islamic apologists to provide statistical evidence that alleged provocative stories have a detrimental effect on groups or individuals in groups. Game over.

  17. seanreed68 profile image60
    seanreed68posted 5 weeks ago

    "Klara Selin says the statistics don't represent a major crime epidemic, rather a shift in attitudes. The public debate about this sort of crime in Sweden over the past two decades has had the effect of raising awareness, she says, and encouraging women to go to the police if they have been attacked.

    The police have also made efforts to improve their handling of cases, she suggests, though she doesn't deny that there has been some real increase in the number of attacks taking place - a concern also outlined in an Amnesty International report in 2010.

    "There might also be some increase in actual crime because of societal changes.

    Due to the internet, for example, it's much easier these days to meet somebody, just the same evening if you want to. Also, alcohol consumption has increased quite a lot during this period.

    "But the major explanation is partly that people go to the police more often, but also the fact that in 2005 there has been reform in the sex crime legislation, which made the legal definition of rape much wider than before."

    The change in law meant that cases where the victim was asleep or intoxicated are now included in the figures. Previously they'd been recorded as another category of crime.

    So an on-the-face-of-it international comparison of rape statistics can be misleading"---Article

    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372

    1. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

      I intentionally suggested that one of your sources was unreliable without any substantive evidence, fully expecting you to ask for evidence. I  did that because I knew it would perfectly illustrate the double standard you are applying. As I predicted, your response to that unsubstantiated claim was:

      "What evidence do you have of that allegation?"

      I then even highlighted the double-standard:

      "The fact you ask for evidence for my comments, but happily act as if evidence doesn't matter (until prompted) in the case of the opening comment, is exactly the type of behaviour I am criticizing in this thread. Apparently evidence is only important when challenging a view that doesn't fit the desired narrative."

      This was before you started reeling off your list of excuses.

      Once you did that, I seized the opportunity to further highlight how ludicrous your reasoning is, by expanding my unsubstantiated claim to all your sources, and making it as extreme as possible ("they're all racists"). Then it was simply a matter of throwing each of your excuses straight back at you, whenever you added a new one to the list.

      Unfortunately all this seems to have gone over your head:

      "You only began to hide these claims under the guise of “hyperbole” after I gave you examples of hyperboles that were effective in initiating discussion".

      What you fail to understand is that I would have repeated anything you had said. That was entirely the point. If you had said something instead of hyperbole, I would have repeated that back at you also. That was the same type of argument I used in relation to the unacceptability of your excuses. I even signposted that argument by making a template for you. The two aspects of it were:

      You : "X (e.g. being provocative, being funny, hype etc) justifies promoting unsubstantiated claims about rape as facts".
      Me (via the template): "X, is not a valid reason for promoting unsubstantiated claims about rape, as facts".

      and:

      You: "X (e.g. being provocative, being funny, hype etc) justifies promoting unsubstantiated claims about Muslim migrants".
      Me: (via my own deliberately extreme claim ): "X, justifies promoting unsubstantiated claims about your sources too then".

      That simple argument structure forced you into the position where you effectively had to argue that unsubstantiated claims about your sources are not justified, while at the same time argue that unsubstantiated claims about Muslim immigrants is. That was fully the intention. 

      Unfortunately you failed to pick up on any of that, which is a shame, because it's a beautifully simple argument structure (even if I do say so myself) that essentially had you arguing with yourself.

      Unfortunately you now believe that because I intentionally called all your sources racist to highlight your own double-standard, that means I "logically" have to believe your sources are reliable. Wrong again.

      It could be my opinion that all your sources are racist. Just as it could be yours, or the meme creator's, or "Angry Foreigner's" opinion that Muslims immigrants are significantly contributing to certain crime statistics in Sweden (and without substantive evidence both these are by definition only opinions). In a free society, people are entitled to hold opinions, and state those opinions. BUT just as I can't reasonably expect to state my opinion about the unreliability of your sources as if it's a fact, and not expect someone to ask me for evidence and challenge my motives. So you, the meme creator, Angry Foreigner and anyone else, can't reasonably expect to state opinions about Muslim immigrants and rape, as facts without expecting to be challenged for evidence, and have your motives questioned also. Now if I had made my claim about your sources exactly equivalent to the one about Muslim immigrants, what would it look like?

      I would have created a meme, a forum thread, and a YouTube video (that gathered nearly 2 million views) suggesting, as a matter of fact, that there is a causal link between your sources, and a high rate of murder where they live.

      If I did that, then claimed afterwards that I just wanted to build some hype to start a discussion, that wouldn't now suddenly make it okay that I did that. And if I posted another video (a full 7 months after the first) and said my claim was said in "jest", because I wanted to be "provocative". Again that wouldn't suddenly erase the claim that was made, and make it suddenly ok. Once again, those things you listed are not valid justifications. They are merely attempts to justify poor behaviour and lessen blame, i.e. they are excuses.

      The second dimension of that (the issue I initially raised) is the fact that with both of these (my deliberately extreme claim, and the real extreme claim about Muslim immigrants) everyone should challenge such claims. It shouldn't matter whether someone is on the left or the right. Claims about serious, complex social issues, which are stated as facts without any evidence, should be challenged by everyone. Instead, I observe that people challenge only things that don't fit the narrative within their own bubble, and give claims that fit within that bubble a pass, even if they know they can't be substantiated. The result is this toxic cesspool that pases for public discourse nowadays, where people feel the need to whip up hype, or try to be funny, or make increasingly provocative claims just to be heard above all the other BS from people who are trying to do the same. And that's the issue.

      I would reply to the rest of your comment, but frankly it all just misses the point, which is mostly outlined above. I don't particularly care about what you do and don't believe. Why would I? You're a random stranger on the internet, so your opinion means nothing to me. If I said this discussion was any more than temporary entertainment, I would be lying, as (I hope) would you be.

 
working