STOCKHOLM — Swedish police have confirmed that there were widespread sexual assaults at a music festival in Stockholm last summer but denied allegations of a cover-up.
Police hadn't mentioned the August incidents at the "We are Sthlm" festival until newspaper Dagens Nyheter reported on them this weekend following the sexual assaults on New Year's Eve in Germany.
Stockholm police spokesman Varg Gyllander confirmed to AP on Monday there was "a large number" of sexual assaults and that scores of men were detained. He denied a cover-up but said police should have reported on the incidents at the time "given the nature of the crime."
Gyllander couldn't confirm Dagens Nyheter's report that most suspects were from Afghanistan, but said "this involves young men who are not from Sweden."
These incidents are coming fast and furious, really.
By the last line, I'm sure he meant it was a British stag party that got a bit out of hand.
More info here. It seems the youngest girls that were sexually assaulted were between 11 and 12 years old.
Spoiler:
I predict a page 4 lock after people come here to try to derail.
Absolutely, flabbergastingly stupid behaviour by the police if the allegations are true (and seeing as the police are more or less admitting, they probably are).
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Absolutely, flabbergastingly stupid behaviour by the police if the allegations are true (and seeing as the police are more or less admitting, they probably are).
To quote the guy in charge of the operation (Peter Ågren, if you're wondering who to be angry at):
Det här är en öm punkt, vi vågar ibland inte säga som det är för att vi tror att det spelar Sverigedemokraterna i händerna. Vi får ta på oss det här inom polisen.
Which seems to roughly translate into:
It's a sensitive topic, sometimes we don't dare to say things as they are because we're afraid that it plays into the hands of the Swedish Democrats (populist right-wing). We have to take responsibility within the police-force.
Essentially, the police are playing politics and covering up facts to stop the anti-immigration parties getting support.
Y'know, if the facts are against you, Mr Policeman, maybe you're the one in the wrong?
Bloody hell. The guy needs a belt round the ear. What ludicrous nonsense.
Is this the level of integrity and intelligence of the European Left?
It is actions like THIS, this sort of dishonesty and cover ups, that feed the populist right. Unbelievable.
This, after the German police deployed the water cannon on the Pegida protesters earlier in the week. Are they for real? Where was the water cannon on New Years?
Da Boss wrote: Bloody hell. The guy needs a belt round the ear. What ludicrous nonsense.
Is this the level of integrity and intelligence of the European Left?
It is actions like THIS, this sort of dishonesty and cover ups, that feed the populist right. Unbelievable.
This, after the German police deployed the water cannon on the Pegida protesters earlier in the week. Are they for real? Where was the water cannon on New Years?
Thought crimes are worse than real crimes. I thought you guys knew this already.
kronk wrote: I feel sorry for those poor young girls and hope the jackasses that attacked them are caught and punished.
They were caught. They were then escorted out of the festival. Any that were positively identified were detained... And then let go as there was zero chance that the police were gonna press charges.
It doesn't help that any migrant in Sweden can claim they are 12 and therefore not be able to be detained for crimes committed. Like these guys who claim they're 14 in the left hand photo and 16 in the right hand one (he is actually racing those kids, and the journalists gave him the teddy bear to try to make him look younger):
It doesn't even surprised me after what happened in England (to Rotherham IIRC).
You know, "don't make amalgam", "Immigration is an opportunity / chance " this kind of things...
It is weird how just pictures can change your opinion. I thought that and for a second said to myself "He looks to innocent to be a rapist" and than caught myself realizing how ludicrous that actually sounds.
Photos and bias are weird things.
Those are actually two different people abusing the system, not one.
Apparently the main reason they do this is:
"It is considered unreasonable for children to wait longer than six months for a decision on whether they get to stay or not, and thus it is a huge advantage, when seeking asylum, to claim that you are under 18."
The idea of kids being decided on quickly/more favourably is a perfectly fine thing in my mind. People who aren't kids should not be doing it.
I'm finding myself less and less surprised by the behaviour of governments and bodies such as the police force. They're afraid of being sued and 'getting it wrong' as a single mistake and it's splashed all over the news by over zealous media.
The day is coming when the general public will take action into their own hands to deal with these child molesters, thieves, rapists and aggressive individuals. I also expect far too many innocent refugees and immigrants will be attacked as a consequence.
Indeed, I saw some reports earlier today. We'll end up with two polarised groups - it'll end up everyone who isn't hardline Muslim vs them. Suppose that's what ISIS wants
Da Boss wrote: Bloody hell. The guy needs a belt round the ear. What ludicrous nonsense.
Is this the level of integrity and intelligence of the European Left?
It is actions like THIS, this sort of dishonesty and cover ups, that feed the populist right. Unbelievable.
This, after the German police deployed the water cannon on the Pegida protesters earlier in the week. Are they for real? Where was the water cannon on New Years?
Thought crimes are worse than real crimes. I thought you guys knew this already.
kronk wrote: I feel sorry for those poor young girls and hope the jackasses that attacked them are caught and punished.
They were caught. They were then escorted out of the festival. Any that were positively identified were detained... And then let go as there was zero chance that the police were gonna press charges.
It doesn't help that any migrant in Sweden can claim they are 12 and therefore not be able to be detained for crimes committed. Like these guys who claim they're 14 in the left hand photo and 16 in the right hand one (he is actually racing those kids, and the journalists gave him the teddy bear to try to make him look younger):
Da Boss wrote: Bloody hell. The guy needs a belt round the ear. What ludicrous nonsense.
Is this the level of integrity and intelligence of the European Left?
It is actions like THIS, this sort of dishonesty and cover ups, that feed the populist right. Unbelievable.
This, after the German police deployed the water cannon on the Pegida protesters earlier in the week. Are they for real? Where was the water cannon on New Years?
Thought crimes are worse than real crimes. I thought you guys knew this already.
kronk wrote: I feel sorry for those poor young girls and hope the jackasses that attacked them are caught and punished.
They were caught. They were then escorted out of the festival. Any that were positively identified were detained... And then let go as there was zero chance that the police were gonna press charges.
It doesn't help that any migrant in Sweden can claim they are 12 and therefore not be able to be detained for crimes committed. Like these guys who claim they're 14 in the left hand photo and 16 in the right hand one (he is actually racing those kids, and the journalists gave him the teddy bear to try to make him look younger):
so since 'civilised' countries tend to require the state to prove their case (ie Ayslum seeker X is over 18 and so can be treated as an adult) rather than the individual (who may well not have papers for many innocent reasons, including that the never had any, rather than just because they threw them away)
however this does mean it incentivises smart asylum seekers who might not qualify to lie about their ages so they get the added protection a minor child is entitiled to
Da Boss wrote: Polarisation is definitely what ISIS wants. But it's very hard to stop it.
Ehhh I dunno if it is all that hard. Terrorist groups do want to polarize their enemies, but more than anything they want massive reprisals. If Western govts try so hard to not polarize the groups that they start looking the other way over flagrant sexual assaults of (and lets be honest here) White women, there will be reprisals. Massive, over the top responses. It's Algeria all over again and the only people that learned from it are the extremist Muslims.
Best bet is to enforce the law like it should and really look at some of the programs in place for young, single ME men to come into the West and not change their culture one bit. I fully am willing to accept any woman, child, or elderly person from these areas, but fighting age, straight, single men should be looked at more. We are the number one source of violence throughout history for a reason.
So we should treat all the illegals as they were adult, unless they can prove they aren't.
This way we are sure to keep only the kids, if you really want to keep the kids because you are "human" etc...
Thus, we avoid such disgusting deception, and this encourage legal means to enter the country.
No-one want to be pushed back after such a travel just because he hadn't his papers, whereas now they are encouraged to lie.
godardc wrote: So we should treat all the illegals as they were adult, unless they can prove they aren't.
This way we are sure to keep only the kids, if you really want to keep the kids because you are "human" etc...
Thus, we avoid such disgusting deception, and this encourage legal means to enter the country.
No-one want to be pushed back after such a travel just because he hadn't his papers, whereas now they are encouraged to lie.
What? It's pretty easy to tell adult males from pre-pubescent males and adult males from adult women.
These sexual attacks aren't coming from Syrian refugees, but they are coming from adherents to their beliefs already in the West. And that's why I think the adult, male population from these countries should be checked more. Nobody ever had a great country dropped on them out of a war, you've gotta fight for it.
But of course those forays have really fethed the dog in their own ways (cough mujhadeen in Afghanistan cough). Bet Reagan really hates those decisions from beyond the grave. Along with the cocaine trafficking and Iranian arms sales and whatnot. Maybe the dementia and trickle down too, but that doesn't seem to have gone away as much in American politics.
After all these incidents over the last weeks or months, the thing that disturbs me almost the most is that so very few of the perpetrators seem to be caught and sentenced for their crimes. And that is not only true for these big incidents like this in Sweden or the New Year's incidents in Cologne, Hamburg and Helsinki, but also for the "common" (god that sounds cynical) sexual assaults happening every day, everywhere. If perps were caught, registered and sentenced like the law in the vast majority of countries describes it - then, I think, the population as a whole wouldn't go as deep into this refugee debate. If the police had the competence, funds and tools to weed out the criminals efficiently, and if people could have trust in the police and of course also in the courts to do this - then at least "justice would be done" to the perpetrators themselves, and there wouldn't be a need for this huge debate about effectively punishing whole groups of people, refugees, in this case. (By "keeping them out" as the argument usually goes)
So, moar funds, staff, and training for the police please. They need to be able to do their job effectively.
Depending on what sources of news you look at show different proportions of men. Some photos show crowds that are overwhelmingly young men, yet other parts of the media disproportionately only show families and children. There's so much propaganda being used to fit a certain narrative.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Depending on what sources of news you look at show different proportions of men. Some photos show crowds that are overwhelmingly young men, yet other parts of the media disproportionately only show families and children. There's so much propaganda being used to fit a certain narrative.
The actual statistics suggest that it's 76% men, 15% women and the rest are "children and others". Since children can apparently include 30-year-old men, it'd probably be best to assume it's 85% men.
Da Boss wrote: I saw some numbers (sorry, I can't remember where) that suggested it was roughly a 50/50 split between young men and families.
What a brave thing to say from the comfort of your armchair :(
If you could only send one member of your family on a very dangerous journey to an unknown but perhaps safer place, knowing there's a high chance you won't see each other ever again, who would you choose?
Minx wrote: What a brave thing to say from the comfort of your armchair :(
If you could only send one member of your family on a very dangerous journey to an unknown but perhaps safer place, knowing there's a high chance you won't see each other ever again, who would you choose?
Easy, I'd send my wife to the safe location where she won't be raped by Jihadies or shot on the streets
Minx wrote: What a brave thing to say from the comfort of your armchair :(
If you could only send one member of your family on a very dangerous journey to an unknown but perhaps safer place, knowing there's a high chance you won't see each other ever again, who would you choose?
Easy, I'd send my wife to the safe location where she won't be raped by Jihadies or shot on the streets
Next question?
Yeah, for real. Oh man we can only manage to get a few of us safely to Europe, should we send our wives, women who can't defend themselves from ISIS, and children?
Or should we send all of our 18-35 year old men and boys so they can lie about their age and commit heinous crimes at a disgusting rate?
Take your basic family "Young male, young wife, young child".
- The young male is the person most likely to end up dead in Syria. The same "fighting age male" stuff everyone hear complains about is the same thing that gets them either killed outright, or gets them conscripted and then killed. It's easier to hide a young wife and young child with older family in Syria than being a young male.
- The young male is also the person most likely to survive the trip to Europe, and much less likely to be killed or raped by human traffickers. So you send the person most likely to make the trip successfully.
- Once you get asylum you can work on safely bringing the rest of your family.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Turns out this has been a problem for years at this festival, but local authorities shut up to avoid harming the reputation of the festival.
You know what wasn't a thing that far back though? The Syrian refugee wave. Who're you going to demonize instead?
Minx wrote: What a brave thing to say from the comfort of your armchair :(
If you could only send one member of your family on a very dangerous journey to an unknown but perhaps safer place, knowing there's a high chance you won't see each other ever again, who would you choose?
AKA my position is indefensible but I will ignore the facts for the sake of emotions.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Turns out this has been a problem for years at this festival, but local authorities shut up to avoid harming the reputation of the festival.
You know what wasn't a thing that far back though? The Syrian refugee wave. Who're you going to demonize instead?
Are you... Are you joking? Are you really suggesting that Sweden hasn't had an endless open migration border policy for at least a solid ten years?
You do realise that the Swedish government years ago made it illegal to report ethnicity and immigration status statistics in their crime data because so many rapes were being committed by migrants, right? It was something ridiculous like 21 rapes by a migrant compared to 1 rape by a Swedish man and the amount of migrants was much lower back then, too.
You do realise that the Swedish government years ago made it illegal to report ethnicity and immigration status statistics in their crime data because so many rapes were being committed by migrants, right? It was something ridiculous like 21 rapes by a migrant compared to 1 rape by a Swedish man and the amount of migrants was much lower back then, too.
A statistic that will be easy to back up, I'm sure...
You do realise that the Swedish government years ago made it illegal to report ethnicity and immigration status statistics in their crime data because so many rapes were being committed by migrants, right? It was something ridiculous like 21 rapes by a migrant compared to 1 rape by a Swedish man and the amount of migrants was much lower back then, too.
A statistic that will be easy to back up, I'm sure...
You do realise that the Swedish government years ago made it illegal to report ethnicity and immigration status statistics in their crime data because so many rapes were being committed by migrants, right? It was something ridiculous like 21 rapes by a migrant compared to 1 rape by a Swedish man and the amount of migrants was much lower back then, too.
A statistic that will be easy to back up, I'm sure...
You do realise that the Swedish government years ago made it illegal to report ethnicity and immigration status statistics in their crime data because so many rapes were being committed by migrants, right? It was something ridiculous like 21 rapes by a migrant compared to 1 rape by a Swedish man and the amount of migrants was much lower back then, too.
A statistic that will be easy to back up, I'm sure...
The chart does seem to indicate that there are a large number of family reunifications, I wonder if that may be those pesky males bringing their families.
You do realise that the Swedish government years ago made it illegal to report ethnicity and immigration status statistics in their crime data because so many rapes were being committed by migrants, right? It was something ridiculous like 21 rapes by a migrant compared to 1 rape by a Swedish man and the amount of migrants was much lower back then, too.
A statistic that will be easy to back up, I'm sure...
The anti-immigration Sweden Democrats Party has repeatedly made the claim that the high number of rape reports is at least partly due to the influx of Muslim immigrants. Two reports from the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (BRÅ) are relevant to the rate of rape among immigrants to Sweden and their descendants. The latest published report that indicates the association between immigrants and rape was published in 2005 and revealed that from 1997 to 2001 foreign born individuals were 5.5 times more likely to be charged of rape than individuals born in Sweden to two Swedish parents and that foreign born individuals from all regions, apart from East Asia, committed sexual assaults at rates up to 5.3 times greater than that of individuals born in Sweden to two Swedish parents. The report doesn't break down the foreign born category by country of origin despite the fact that country of origin has been found to be highly predictive of crime rates in other Nordic countries. However, a 1996 report by the BRÅ did break down rate of rape convictions by country of origin, using data from 1985 to 1989 it found particularly high rates of rape convictions among certain immigrant groups. After controlling for age, sex and place of residence, the highest rates were for individuals born in North Africa (Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia), Italy, and Iraq who were convicted of rape at rates of 17.5, 16.5 and 12.5 times the native Swedish rate respectively.
The report also states that Muslim African immigrants have the highest overall rate statistics with a rape average of 23 times the Swedish average.
Forty years after the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the formerly homogenous Sweden into a multicultural country, violent crime has increased by 300% and rapes by 1,472%. Sweden is now number two on the list of rape countries, surpassed only by Lesotho in Southern Africa.
Keep in mind that in EVERY OTHER WESTERN COUNTRY rape statistics have dropped or stayed steady and you should really start to wonder a bit.
You do realise that the Swedish government years ago made it illegal to report ethnicity and immigration status statistics in their crime data because so many rapes were being committed by migrants, right? It was something ridiculous like 21 rapes by a migrant compared to 1 rape by a Swedish man and the amount of migrants was much lower back then, too.
A statistic that will be easy to back up, I'm sure...
You do realise that the Swedish government years ago made it illegal to report ethnicity and immigration status statistics in their crime data because so many rapes were being committed by migrants, right? It was something ridiculous like 21 rapes by a migrant compared to 1 rape by a Swedish man and the amount of migrants was much lower back then, too.
A statistic that will be easy to back up, I'm sure...
The anti-immigration Sweden Democrats Party has repeatedly made the claim that the high number of rape reports is at least partly due to the influx of Muslim immigrants. Two reports from the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (BRÅ) are relevant to the rate of rape among immigrants to Sweden and their descendants. The latest published report that indicates the association between immigrants and rape was published in 2005 and revealed that from 1997 to 2001 foreign born individuals were 5.5 times more likely to be charged of rape than individuals born in Sweden to two Swedish parents and that foreign born individuals from all regions, apart from East Asia, committed sexual assaults at rates up to 5.3 times greater than that of individuals born in Sweden to two Swedish parents. The report doesn't break down the foreign born category by country of origin despite the fact that country of origin has been found to be highly predictive of crime rates in other Nordic countries. However, a 1996 report by the BRÅ did break down rate of rape convictions by country of origin, using data from 1985 to 1989 it found particularly high rates of rape convictions among certain immigrant groups. After controlling for age, sex and place of residence, the highest rates were for individuals born in North Africa (Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia), Italy, and Iraq who were convicted of rape at rates of 17.5, 16.5 and 12.5 times the native Swedish rate respectively.
So we went from 21 rapes by migrants compared to 1 rape per Swede to 5.3 raped by foreign born individuals.
Then it went to 17.5 rapes for North Africans, 16.5 rapes for Italians, and 12.5 rapes for Iraqis.
The report also states that Muslim African immigrants have the highest overall rate statistics with a rape average of 23 times the Swedish average.
Couldn't find a mention of that in the Wikipedia article you cited.
Forty years after the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the formerly homogenous Sweden into a multicultural country, violent crime has increased by 300% and rapes by 1,472%. Sweden is now number two on the list of rape countries, surpassed only by Lesotho in Southern Africa.
1. You would do well to ignore Gatestone Institute.
2. Sweden changed the laws to count more things as rape than most other countries, and once something is reported as rape it is forever reported as rape even if the investigation ends up proving that no rape was committed. That info is even in the article you linked.
d-usa wrote: So we went from 21 rapes by migrants compared to 1 rape per Swede to 5.3 raped by foreign born individuals.
Then it went to 17.5 rapes for North Africans, 16.5 rapes for Italians, and 12.5 rapes for Iraqis.
...You do see how out of date this stuff is, right? 1985 to 1989. God damn 25-30 years ago. Sweden has had a LOT more immigration since then.
d-usa wrote: Couldn't find a mention of that in the Wikipedia article you cited.
Because it's not listed on the Wikipedia article. Hence why I say, "in the report itself".
d-usa wrote: 1. You would do well to ignore Gatestone Institute.
2. Sweden changed the laws to count more things as rape than most other countries, and once something is reported as rape it is forever reported as rape even if the investigation ends up proving that no rape was committed. That info is even in the article you linked.
1. Why? Because you disagree with them? Just because you dislike a fact doesn't make it not true, it just makes you delusional.
2. And? That doesn't account for a 1472% increase in rapes. It would, maybe, double the number of rapes. Almost a fifteen hundred percent increase suggests an epidemic. Nevermind violent crime increasing by 300%.
The current one is undergoing an edit war about a section titled the 'Rape Capital Myth'. Heaven forbid someone click the link to the actual article while that section is on it
Then you shouldn't use it as a source to begin with.
d-usa wrote: So we went from 21 rapes by migrants compared to 1 rape per Swede to 5.3 raped by foreign born individuals.
Then it went to 17.5 rapes for North Africans, 16.5 rapes for Italians, and 12.5 rapes for Iraqis.
...You do see how out of date this stuff is, right? 1985 to 1989. God damn 25-30 years ago. Sweden has had a LOT more immigration since then.
And the one published in 2005 shows 5.3 foreign born per 1 swede.
d-usa wrote: Couldn't find a mention of that in the Wikipedia article you cited.
Because it's not listed on the Wikipedia article. Hence why I say, "in the report itself".
Then link to the actual report?
d-usa wrote: 1. You would do well to ignore Gatestone Institute. 2. Sweden changed the laws to count more things as rape than most other countries, and once something is reported as rape it is forever reported as rape even if the investigation ends up proving that no rape was committed. That info is even in the article you linked.
1. Why? Because you disagree with them? Just because you dislike a fact doesn't make it not true, it just makes you delusional. 2. And? That doesn't account for a 1472% increase in rapes. It would, maybe, double the number of rapes. Almost a fifteen hundred percent increase suggests an epidemic. Nevermind violent crime increasing by 300%.
1. Because it's a partisan hack organization that manages to do an even worse job citing and presenting their statistics accurately than you are? 2. 1472% increase? The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention reports that there were 185 rape convictions in 2005, which peaked to 245 convictions in 2008, and then actually dropped to 172 last year. So actually rape convictions are down. Now, it's important to look at convictions because as stated earlier, if someone reports a rape and it is found to be a false report, it stays in the statistics as a reported rape. If you want to go by reports, they have increased 300%, from 2,200 to 6,600 according to the BBC. But the BBS also states:
"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.
If I remember right, Assange was charged with rape because he said he wore a condom, but he didn't put one on, and since the woman consented to protected sex and not unprotected sex it was registered as a rape.
Sweden has the most comprehensive rape laws of any western nation, and from the looks of it Sweden does an outstanding job getting victims of sexual abuse to come forward and report crimes. That's the main reason numbers jumped up as much as they did, and they are still FAR below 1472%.
d-usa wrote: 1. Because it's a partisan hack organization that manages to do an even worse job citing and presenting their statistics accurately than you are?
2. 1472% increase? The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention reports that there were 185 rape convictions in 2005, which peaked to 245 convictions in 2008, and then actually dropped to 172 last year. So actually rape convictions are down. Now, it's important to look at convictions because as stated earlier, if someone reports a rape and it is found to be a false report, it stays in the statistics as a reported rape. If you want to go by reports, they have increased 300%, from 2,200 to 6,600 according to the BBC. But the BBS also states:
"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.
If I remember right, Assange was charged with rape because he said he wore a condom, but he didn't put one on, and since the woman consented to protected sex and not unprotected sex it was registered as a rape.
Sweden has the most comprehensive rape laws of any western nation, and from the looks of it Sweden does an outstanding job getting victims of sexual abuse to come forward and report crimes. That's the main reason numbers jumped up as much as they did, and they are still FAR below 1472%.
You do realise that a lot of the sexual asaults and rapes in Sweden are committed by "underage migrants" (men who claimed to be 12 when they're quite blatantly full grown adults).
Convictions are meaningless in Sweden. Jesus, look at the thing that started this which is literally the police covering up the sexual assault of minors and letting everyone who did it just LEAVE. The police and the Swedish government actively manipulate and cover up statistics to make the problem not look as bad as what they want.
Also, look up Rotherham. See what the future is.
Here's the Swedish Prime Minister visiting a refugee children's home:
Da Boss wrote: Attacks have already started in Cologne unfortunately. But it's predictable if people think the police will not protect them.
Which is of course hilarious ignorance, not an unusual quality in cases like this. Big incidents like this always skew public opinion, but the reality on the ground whether you're disabled/mentally ill, an immigrant, or a smaller religious group is you're far more likely statistically(per-capita) to be a victim of crime than a perpetrator.
But people robbing the mentally ill, beating the crippled, and abusing brown folk isn't news, much rarer incidents of brown folk abusing white girls or mentally ill folk going mental with a weapon evidently are. At least according to the folk who own the newspapers.
Yodhrin wrote: Which is of course hilarious ignorance, not an unusual quality in cases like this. Big incidents like this always skew public opinion, but the reality on the ground whether you're disabled/mentally ill, an immigrant, or a smaller religious group is you're far more likely statistically(per-capita) to be a victim of crime than a perpetrator.
But people robbing the mentally ill, beating the crippled, and abusing brown folk isn't news, much rarer incidents of brown folk abusing white girls or mentally ill folk going mental with a weapon evidently are. At least according to the folk who own the newspapers.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Turns out this has been a problem for years at this festival, but local authorities shut up to avoid harming the reputation of the festival.
You know what wasn't a thing that far back though? The Syrian refugee wave. Who're you going to demonize instead?
Are you... Are you joking? Are you really suggesting that Sweden hasn't had an endless open migration border policy for at least a solid ten years?
You do realise that the Swedish government years ago made it illegal to report ethnicity and immigration status statistics in their crime data because so many rapes were being committed by migrants, right? It was something ridiculous like 21 rapes by a migrant compared to 1 rape by a Swedish man and the amount of migrants was much lower back then, too.
Right, so now we're going from "Syrian immigrants bad!" to "ALL immigrants bad!" and then making a statement that you've failed to back up whatsoever.
You friggin' STARTED the thread with the spoilered
I predict a page 4 lock after people come here to try to derail
and then proceeded to derail your own thread by making it about immigration instead of the sexual abuse coverup. You're not arguing in good faith. The fact that you claim to be able to tell a person's age from a picture alone is ludicrous.
Yodhrin wrote: Which is of course hilarious ignorance, not an unusual quality in cases like this. Big incidents like this always skew public opinion, but the reality on the ground whether you're disabled/mentally ill, an immigrant, or a smaller religious group is you're far more likely statistically(per-capita) to be a victim of crime than a perpetrator.
But people robbing the mentally ill, beating the crippled, and abusing brown folk isn't news, much rarer incidents of brown folk abusing white girls or mentally ill folk going mental with a weapon evidently are. At least according to the folk who own the newspapers.
Go look up Rotherham, man.
You don't argue by telling people to "look it up", you back your claims up with sources.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Right, so now we're going from "Syrian immigrants bad!" to "ALL immigrants bad!" and then making a statement that you've failed to back up whatsoever.
Back up YOUR claims, mate. Where did I say anything you're saying?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: and then proceeded to derail your own thread by making it about immigration instead of the sexual abuse coverup. You're not arguing in good faith. The fact that you claim to be able to tell a person's age from a picture alone is ludicrous.
Because they covered it up because it's migrants? I don't think this is a hard concept to grasp.
Funny how your tune changes as soon as it's not about how all men are rapists but how all migrant men are rapists. I guess tarring one group with a brush is fine (a much bigger, diverse group) but the other isn't?
Also, those guys are obviously older than 20. It's not a matter of "just telling age", you can easily grasp what age range someone is in by looking at them. Oh, also, Sweden used to test for age until it turned out 85% of migrant children were much older than they were saying they were.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You don't argue by telling people to "look it up", you back your claims up with sources.
Rotherham's a well known case of sexual abuse of white children by Pakistani migrants that was covered up by the police because they didn't want to be seen as racists. I don't need to back something like this up because with a simple Google search you can get as much information as you need.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Right, so now we're going from "Syrian immigrants bad!" to "ALL immigrants bad!" and then making a statement that you've failed to back up whatsoever.
Back up YOUR claims, mate. Where did I say anything you're saying?
The post I quoted? I pointed out that the issues at this festival predates the Syrian refugee crisis, at which point you answered by pointing out that Sweden's taken a relatively high amount of refugees from other countries as well, ergo you're trying to blame refugees as a group.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: and then proceeded to derail your own thread by making it about immigration instead of the sexual abuse coverup. You're not arguing in good faith. The fact that you claim to be able to tell a person's age from a picture alone is ludicrous.
Because they covered it up because it's migrants? I don't think this is a hard concept to grasp.
And yet the thread could just as easily have been about institutional flaws in Swedish police, but you couldn't even wait a page to jump on the immigrant-bashing bandwagon.
nullBolt wrote: Also, those guys are obviously older than 20. It's not a matter of "just telling age", you can easily grasp what age range someone is in by looking at them. Oh, also, Sweden used to test for age until it turned out 85% of migrant children were much older than they were saying they were.
Bull. Also, citation needed. How does one accurately "test for age"?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You don't argue by telling people to "look it up", you back your claims up with sources.
Rotherham's a well known case of sexual abuse of white children by Pakistani migrants that was covered up by the police because they didn't want to be seen as racists. I don't need to back something like this up because with a simple Google search you can get as much information as you need.
How does it tie into your argument? You can't just tell someone to "read up on this!" and then expect them to be able to read your mind.
You're STILL not providing sources for your claims BTW.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The post I quoted? I pointed out that the issues at this festival predates the Syrian refugee crisis, at which point you answered by pointing out that Sweden's taken a relatively high amount of refugees from other countries as well, ergo you're trying to blame refugees as a group.
Swedish logic, everyone.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And yet the thread could just as easily have been about institutional flaws in Swedish police, but you couldn't even wait a page to jump on the immigrant-bashing bandwagon.
Considering the primary institutional flaw is the fact that Swedish police are more interested in pro-migrant politics than actual policing, I fail to see your point.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Bull. Also, citation needed. How does one accurately "test for age"?
Wrist bone x-rays and dental tests. They're not completely accurate, but they allow you to have some idea of age range.
The Danish do it. If you read through that article you can see that they tested 285 migrants for their age and found... 203 of them were not underage. 71% of them were not underage.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How does it tie into your argument? You can't just tell someone to "read up on this!" and then expect them to be able to read your mind.
You're STILL not providing sources for your claims BTW.
Because it was a cover up of the sexual assault of white minors by migrants? Just like this one? Do I have to give you every facet of a concept by hand? Is this why you're struggling so much? Do you get all your opinions from the Swedish media instead of looking at facts and deciding for yourself?
Mainly because I'm spending my time asking you for sources. I'm not the one making claims about things in this thread, and you'll note that I actually provided a source when I did.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The post I quoted? I pointed out that the issues at this festival predates the Syrian refugee crisis, at which point you answered by pointing out that Sweden's taken a relatively high amount of refugees from other countries as well, ergo you're trying to blame refugees as a group.
Swedish logic, everyone.
Ad hominem, but you'll note that I'm not blaming that on Germans as a group. You're not making a very good attempt at hiding the fact that you're treating people differently based on their nationality.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And yet the thread could just as easily have been about institutional flaws in Swedish police, but you couldn't even wait a page to jump on the immigrant-bashing bandwagon.
Considering the primary institutional flaw is the fact that Swedish police are more interested in pro-migrant politics than actual policing, I fail to see your point.
Then why are you complaining about refugees not being the age they claim? That's unrelated to the question at hand, no?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Bull. Also, citation needed. How does one accurately "test for age"?
Wrist bone x-rays and dental tests. They're not completely accurate, but they allow you to have some idea of age range.
The Danish do it. If you read through that article you can see that they tested 285 migrants for their age and found... 203 of them were not underage. 71% of them were not underage.
The article you linked itself points out how the tests are inaccurate and shouldn't ever be used as stand-alone evidence (see below). If the age range is 16-20, then what? You still haven't explained how you can tell a person's "true" age just by looking at a photograph of them.
mx.dk wrote:En sådan test vil altid have en vis unøjagtighed og bør om muligt ikke stå alene, siger formand for Retslægerådet, Bent Ottesen.
nullBolt wrote: Because it was a cover up of the sexual assault of white minors by migrants? Just like this one? Do I have to give you every facet of a concept by hand?
And what exactly is the argument you're making? You've just told people to "look it up" and then not bothered to explain WHY. Yes, it's a case of immigrants sexually abusing children. What's your point?
nullBolt wrote: Do you get all your opinions from the Swedish media instead of looking at facts and deciding for yourself?
Says the guy who linked the Gatestone Institute as a source.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Mainly because I'm spending my time asking you for sources. I'm not the one making claims about things in this thread, and you'll note that I actually provided a source when I did.
You didn't source where I said this was the fault of Syrian migrants. You haven't sourced anything I said directly, in fact.
I've posted a lot of sources, you're just wilfully ignoring them because you're scared of the facts.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Ad hominem, but you'll note that I'm not blaming that on Germans as a group. You're not making a very good attempt at hiding the fact that you're treating people differently based on their nationality.
Good thing you're not, because I'm not German.
What, exactly, is wrong with treating people differently based on their nationality? Isn't this part of the whole equity deal you kind of people like to chat about?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Then why are you complaining about refugees not being the age they claim? That's unrelated to the question at hand, no?
Not really, since it allows them to be let off from sexual assault and rape charges with a slap on the wrist (if that).
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The article you linked itself points out how the tests are inaccurate and shouldn't ever be used as stand-alone evidence (see below). If the age range is 16-20, then what? You still haven't explained how you can tell a person's "true" age just by looking at a photograph of them.
So when the police ask you to identify someone's age, you just say, "I DONT KNOW MR POLICEMAN I'M NOT PSYCHIC SIR"? Genuinely, your logic is nonsense. But then again, I'm not shocked considering how awful your logic was in the last thread about this sort of thing.
I said it's not completely accurate but that it allows for identification of some sort of age range. Maybe they should have passports or birth certificates?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And what exactly is the argument you're making? You've just told people to "look it up" and then not bothered to explain WHY. Yes, it's a case of immigrants sexually abusing children. What's your point?
My point is that it's endemic, kiddo. Factual evidence. Hard evidence. True evidence.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The article you linked itself points out how the tests are inaccurate and shouldn't ever be used as stand-alone evidence (see below). If the age range is 16-20, then what? You still haven't explained how you can tell a person's "true" age just by looking at a photograph of them.
So when the police ask you to identify someone's age, you just say, "I DONT KNOW MR POLICEMAN I'M NOT PSYCHIC SIR"? Genuinely, your logic is nonsense. But then again, I'm not shocked considering how awful your logic was in the last thread about this sort of thing.
Yeah, that post really isn't a good example to use if you're trying to argue that your logic is superior to AlmightyWalrus's.
To explain; assuming that "arab culture" is homogenous automatically assigns traits and features to them as a group because of the definition of the word homogenous. It assumes that they're all the same, and therefore have the same traits and features.
Also, have you tried not referring to people as "kiddo"? Generally people are more receptive to opposing views if they feel that they're discussing things with someone that isn't a condescending ass.
Da Boss wrote: I saw some numbers (sorry, I can't remember where) that suggested it was roughly a 50/50 split between young men and families.
They're lies.
This is not how rebuttals work. The "nuh uh!" "Yeah!" "Nuh uh!" style of argument is supposed to be abandoned at lower school.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
godardc wrote: So we should treat all the illegals as they were adult, unless they can prove they aren't. This way we are sure to keep only the kids, if you really want to keep the kids because you are "human" etc... Thus, we avoid such disgusting deception, and this encourage legal means to enter the country. No-one want to be pushed back after such a travel just because he hadn't his papers, whereas now they are encouraged to lie.
Maybe we should just let them all drown in the Aegean?
Goliath wrote: Yeah, that post really isn't a good example to use if you're trying to argue that your logic is superior to AlmightyWalrus's.
Have you tried not referring to people as "kiddo"? Generally people are more receptive to opposing views if they feel that they're discussing things with someone that isn't a condescending ass.
People are never receptive to opposing viewpoints in a discussion. The goal is to convince everyone else who is reading. AlmightyWalrus is too emotionally invested to change his opinion.
Goliath wrote: Maybe we should just let them all drown in the Aegean?
To be honest, it would stop them coming. And therefore stop them dying.
Goliath wrote: Yeah, that post really isn't a good example to use if you're trying to argue that your logic is superior to AlmightyWalrus's.
Have you tried not referring to people as "kiddo"? Generally people are more receptive to opposing views if they feel that they're discussing things with someone that isn't a condescending ass.
People are never receptive to opposing viewpoints in a discussion. The goal is to convince everyone else who is reading. AlmightyWalrus is too emotionally invested to change his opinion.
Okay. "everyone else who is reading" are less likely to listen to a person if they come across as a condescending ass.
Goliath wrote: Maybe we should just let them all drown in the Aegean?
To be honest, it would stop them coming. And therefore stop them dying.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Mainly because I'm spending my time asking you for sources. I'm not the one making claims about things in this thread, and you'll note that I actually provided a source when I did.
You didn't source where I said this was the fault of Syrian migrants. You haven't sourced anything I said directly, in fact.
I literally quoted you. How much more direct of a source can I make it?
To quote the guy in charge of the operation (Peter Ågren, if you're wondering who to be angry at):
Det här är en öm punkt, vi vågar ibland inte säga som det är för att vi tror att det spelar Sverigedemokraterna i händerna. Vi får ta på oss det här inom polisen.
Second post, quote of a "Peter Ågren" without indicating where the quote is from. I've seen the same quote in other places, so odds are it's accurate, but you really should indicate where it's from.
It doesn't help that any migrant in Sweden can claim they are 12 and therefore not be able to be detained for crimes committed. Like these guys who claim they're 14 in the left hand photo and 16 in the right hand one (he is actually racing those kids, and the journalists gave him the teddy bear to try to make him look younger):
Third post, link to two images without source, making an unsubstantiated claim. I called you on that
Howard A Treesong wrote: Depending on what sources of news you look at show different proportions of men. Some photos show crowds that are overwhelmingly young men, yet other parts of the media disproportionately only show families and children. There's so much propaganda being used to fit a certain narrative.
The actual statistics suggest that it's 76% men, 15% women and the rest are "children and others". Since children can apparently include 30-year-old men, it'd probably be best to assume it's 85% men.
Da Boss wrote: I saw some numbers (sorry, I can't remember where) that suggested it was roughly a 50/50 split between young men and families.
They're lies.
Fourth post, more allegations without providing a source, and declaring that an unknown source is lies without knowing anything about this nebulous source other than the fact that it supposedly disagreed with your perception of the world.
You do realise that the Swedish government years ago made it illegal to report ethnicity and immigration status statistics in their crime data because so many rapes were being committed by migrants, right? It was something ridiculous like 21 rapes by a migrant compared to 1 rape by a Swedish man and the amount of migrants was much lower back then, too.
Fifth post, still no sourcing on your "factual" claims.
You do realise that the Swedish government years ago made it illegal to report ethnicity and immigration status statistics in their crime data because so many rapes were being committed by migrants, right? It was something ridiculous like 21 rapes by a migrant compared to 1 rape by a Swedish man and the amount of migrants was much lower back then, too.
A statistic that will be easy to back up, I'm sure...
6th post, and a link to a Wikipedia source that doesn't say anything about the supposed illegality of reporting ethnicity and immigration status. It's also exceedingly poor form to link someone to an entire page without specifying where in the page the relevant material can be found (for future reference, it's footnote 18). Otherwise correct, the source Wikipedia lists does say what Wikipedia claims it does.
nullBolt wrote: [
The report also states that Muslim African immigrants have the highest overall rate statistics with a rape average of 23 times the Swedish average.
Still 6th post, wrong. The actual figure in the report (page 99) is 17.5, not 23. Still way higher than comfortable, obviously.
Forty years after the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the formerly homogenous Sweden into a multicultural country, violent crime has increased by 300% and rapes by 1,472%. Sweden is now number two on the list of rape countries, surpassed only by Lesotho in Southern Africa.
Keep in mind that in EVERY OTHER WESTERN COUNTRY rape statistics have dropped or stayed steady and you should really start to wonder a bit.
Still 6th post. Your own Wikipedia page should've explained to you why international comparsions on rape statistics is really hard, but that wouldn't fit your narrative, would it? Gatestone Institute simply dismisses the fact that Sweden has what is possibly the widest definition of rape in the world so they can focus on bashing immigrants. They're a joke source, and you should be ashamed for using them as a source at all. You also didn't provide a source on the claim that every other western country has seen reductions in "rape statistics" (without defining what you mean by that).
Further, your source, the Gatestone Institute, cites the oh-so-reputable "Granskning Sverige", who're notorious for such nice things as Holocaust denial.
d-usa wrote: 1. You would do well to ignore Gatestone Institute.
2. Sweden changed the laws to count more things as rape than most other countries, and once something is reported as rape it is forever reported as rape even if the investigation ends up proving that no rape was committed. That info is even in the article you linked.
1. Why? Because you disagree with them? Just because you dislike a fact doesn't make it not true, it just makes you delusional.
2. And? That doesn't account for a 1472% increase in rapes. It would, maybe, double the number of rapes. Almost a fifteen hundred percent increase suggests an epidemic. Nevermind violent crime increasing by 300%.
Still 7th post, and you're again making claims without backing them up. Starting off, the Gatestone Institute page doesn't actually provide a source for it's 1975 figure of 421 rapes. Secondly, you just assume that you're right about the figures without providing any reasoning whatsoever, and flat-out contradicting yourowndamnsources. You've taken it upon yourself to be an expert in the field, because the people who work in the field obviously don't know what they're talking about, do they?
You do realise that a lot of the sexual asaults and rapes in Sweden are committed by "underage migrants" (men who claimed to be 12 when they're quite blatantly full grown adults).
Convictions are meaningless in Sweden. Jesus, look at the thing that started this which is literally the police covering up the sexual assault of minors and letting everyone who did it just LEAVE. The police and the Swedish government actively manipulate and cover up statistics to make the problem not look as bad as what they want.
Also, look up Rotherham. See what the future is.
Here's the Swedish Prime Minister visiting a refugee children's home:
Post 8 and, apart from actually linking the correct source instead of the entire Wikipedia page, you're making unsubstantiated allegations again, and now claiming that the statistics don't matter because they're being manipulated. How, then, do you know that the incidence of rape is higher in immigrants? After all, your own statistics are supposedly manipulated.
Yodhrin wrote: Which is of course hilarious ignorance, not an unusual quality in cases like this. Big incidents like this always skew public opinion, but the reality on the ground whether you're disabled/mentally ill, an immigrant, or a smaller religious group is you're far more likely statistically(per-capita) to be a victim of crime than a perpetrator.
But people robbing the mentally ill, beating the crippled, and abusing brown folk isn't news, much rarer incidents of brown folk abusing white girls or mentally ill folk going mental with a weapon evidently are. At least according to the folk who own the newspapers.
Go look up Rotherham, man.
Post 9, "I can't be bothered backing my arguments up, or even explaining what I think this means".
The following posts are mostly a bunch of thinly veiled attacks on me, with the exception of one valid link to a Danish newspaper that didn't quite agree with your conclusions.
In conclusion, you post sources that "support" you when you think you can, and just post stuff anyway if you can't. You mix in a bunch of ad hominems and accusations of me being misled based on my nationality, and then drop this gem
People are never receptive to opposing viewpoints in a discussion. The goal is to convince everyone else who is reading. AlmightyWalrus is too emotionally invested to change his opinion.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Ad hominem, but you'll note that I'm not blaming that on Germans as a group. You're not making a very good attempt at hiding the fact that you're treating people differently based on their nationality.
Good thing you're not, because I'm not German.
What, exactly, is wrong with treating people differently based on their nationality? Isn't this part of the whole equity deal you kind of people like to chat about?
How is it equity to assume people are a certain way because they're from a certain country? That's completely crazy.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The article you linked itself points out how the tests are inaccurate and shouldn't ever be used as stand-alone evidence (see below). If the age range is 16-20, then what? You still haven't explained how you can tell a person's "true" age just by looking at a photograph of them.
So when the police ask you to identify someone's age, you just say, "I DONT KNOW MR POLICEMAN I'M NOT PSYCHIC SIR"? Genuinely, your logic is nonsense. But then again, I'm not shocked considering how awful your logic was in the last thread about this sort of thing.
I said it's not completely accurate but that it allows for identification of some sort of age range. Maybe they should have passports or birth certificates?
Another ad hominem. You certainly seem to be a psychic though, seeing as you're apparently capable of deciding someone's age based on a photograph. What if they don't have any documents because they were a tad busy fleeing from being bombed to tiny pieces? Again, what happens if the age range is 16-20?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And what exactly is the argument you're making? You've just told people to "look it up" and then not bothered to explain WHY. Yes, it's a case of immigrants sexually abusing children. What's your point?
My point is that it's endemic, kiddo. Factual evidence. Hard evidence. True evidence.
If you're arguing that sexual violence is endemic then I'd agree. Interestingly enough, though, it seems to be endemic all over the world.
If it's that bad of a source, it should be incredibly easy to refute with counter-sources that show why it's incorrect.
As mentioned above, they're not disclosing full sources and they're using a group of Holocaust-denying loonies as a reputable "source", while completely ignoring the methodological problems that exist in cross-national comparisons of crime, rape in particular.
Whew, that might be the biggest rant I've ever written.
Is this the level of integrity and intelligence of the European Left?
It is actions like THIS, this sort of dishonesty and cover ups, that feed the populist right. Unbelievable.
Critical sounds on migration issues have been suppressed by the political establishment across Europe for a long time, it's not really a left vs right issue. Even now the consensus on the issue is fading away due to pressing migration problems, the political left is pretty divided.
I feel this is more of a case of political correctness gone way to far by officials who feared any criticism of immigrants would harm their career prospects.
Is this the level of integrity and intelligence of the European Left?
It is actions like THIS, this sort of dishonesty and cover ups, that feed the populist right. Unbelievable.
Critical sounds on migration issues have been suppressed by the political establishment across Europe for a long time, it's not really a left vs right issue. Even now the consensus on the issue is fading away due to pressing migration problems, the political left is pretty divided.
I feel this is more of a case of political correctness gone way to far by officials who feared any criticism of immigrants would harm their career prospects.
Agreed, with the caveat that much of this so-called "criticism" of immigration just doesn't hold up. There are legit concerns that get drowned out in the debate, but a lot of it is nonsense.
You've not refuted a single one of my sources that I did post, you've just sat there and shouted about how awful they are.
Come on, AlmightyWalrus! Give me citations! Citations, please!
I pointed out the fact that Gatestone is ignoring the difficulties of cross-nation comparisons and even pointed out how three of your own source's citations back me up. I pointed out that they're not providing a source for parts of their claims. How do they intend to reach valid conclusions with a flawed methodology?
I don't have to provide citations to counter claims that you've made without sources, so those claims are out by default.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I pointed out the fact that Gatestone is ignoring the difficulties of cross-nation comparisons and even pointed out how three of your own source's citations back me up. I pointed out that they're not providing a source for parts of their claims. How do they intend to reach valid conclusions with a flawed methodology?
I don't have to provide citations to counter claims that you've made without sources, so those claims are out by default.
How do you intend to reach valid conclusions with no citations? Do you have any citations that go against what they're saying? Because if you don't have anything that contradicts what they are saying, then they are correct.
You've gotta cite these things, man! Come on, give me citations!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: C.f. the claims you made about being able to tell how old someone is from a picture earlier in the thread (if you can't, then why is the picture there?), the spreading of incorrect statistics (you, again) and the inability to understand basic methodology leading to claims about rape being up almost 1500 % mainly due to immigration (Gatestone Institute and, again, you).
Care to provide sources of your own now, or are you just going to keep being an ass?
I just want to make sure I'm understand you:
You're saying that you can't make a guess as to how old someone is by looking at them?
No, seriously, answer that question. You cannot tell a five year old from an eighty year old? You cannot tell a twelve year old from a thirty year old? You cannot tell a fifteen year old from a twenty five year old?
Because that's the claim you're making here. That's more mind boggling than anything else in this thread.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I pointed out the fact that Gatestone is ignoring the difficulties of cross-nation comparisons and even pointed out how three of your own source's citations back me up. I pointed out that they're not providing a source for parts of their claims. How do they intend to reach valid conclusions with a flawed methodology?
I don't have to provide citations to counter claims that you've made without sources, so those claims are out by default.
How do you intend to reach valid conclusions with no citations? Do you have any citations that go against what they're saying? Because if you don't have anything that contradicts what they are saying, then they are correct
By all means, keep being an ass if you think that's going to convince anyone. I'm sure I don't have to explain how absolutely insane that last sentence is, but I'll link you to Russell's teapot on Wikipedia just in case (and yes, it's meant to apply to religion, but it works on any argument). You'll also note that I'm not saying that Gatestone is wrong because of their lack of citations, I'm saying that they're wrong because of a flaw in their methodology, questionable sources AND a lack of citations.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: C.f. the claims you made about being able to tell how old someone is from a picture earlier in the thread (if you can't, then why is the picture there?), the spreading of incorrect statistics (you, again) and the inability to understand basic methodology leading to claims about rape being up almost 1500 % mainly due to immigration (Gatestone Institute and, again, you).
Care to provide sources of your own now, or are you just going to keep being an ass?
I just want to make sure I'm understand you:
You're saying that you can't make a guess as to how old someone is by looking at them?
No, seriously, answer that question. You cannot tell a five year old from an eighty year old? You cannot tell a twelve year old from a thirty year old? You cannot tell a fifteen year old from a twenty five year old?
Because that's the claim you're making here. That's more mind boggling than anything else in this thread.
I've made no such claims, I've been wanting to know how you can accurately decide whether a person is a child or not just by looking at a picture of said person if the person is close to 18 years old. I've made no claims about five-year olds compared to eight-year olds or a twelve-year old compared to a thirty-year old, that's a strawman.
Last warning before warnings are handed out and the thread is locked. Language NEEDS to be polite. If you're getting frustrated, then stop typing. That's the last warning
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I pointed out the fact that Gatestone is ignoring the difficulties of cross-nation comparisons and even pointed out how three of your own source's citations back me up. I pointed out that they're not providing a source for parts of their claims. How do they intend to reach valid conclusions with a flawed methodology?
I don't have to provide citations to counter claims that you've made without sources, so those claims are out by default.
How do you intend to reach valid conclusions with no citations? Do you have any citations that go against what they're saying? Because if you don't have anything that contradicts what they are saying, then they are correct.
You've gotta cite these things, man! Come on, give me citations!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: C.f. the claims you made about being able to tell how old someone is from a picture earlier in the thread (if you can't, then why is the picture there?), the spreading of incorrect statistics (you, again) and the inability to understand basic methodology leading to claims about rape being up almost 1500 % mainly due to immigration (Gatestone Institute and, again, you).
Care to provide sources of your own now, or are you just going to keep being an ass?
I just want to make sure I'm understand you:
You're saying that you can't make a guess as to how old someone is by looking at them?
No, seriously, answer that question. You cannot tell a five year old from an eighty year old? You cannot tell a twelve year old from a thirty year old? You cannot tell a fifteen year old from a twenty five year old?
Because that's the claim you're making here. That's more mind boggling than anything else in this thread.
The point was that 16-21 Y/O's are just a tad indistinguishable from each other, which is why (don't know about anywhere else) we have those ID checks for people buying alcohol in the Uk.
A lad I went to high school with was capable of growing a full beard at age 15, and was pushing into 6' territory, another of my friends gets briefly annoyed using public transport as he gets child fares dumped on him (he soon stops complaining )
AlmightyWalrus wrote: By all means, keep being an ass if you think that's going to convince anyone. I'm sure I don't have to explain how absolutely insane that last sentence is, but I'll link you to Russell's teapot on Wikipedia just in case (and yes, it's meant to apply to religion, but it works on any argument). You'll also note that I'm not saying that Gatestone is wrong because of their lack of citations, I'm saying that they're wrong because of a flaw in their methodology, questionable sources AND a lack of citations.
I'm being an arse because you're endless asking for citations. I'd be here for weeks citing every source and claim you're asking for (most of which are easily findable (JUST GOOGLE "ROTHERHAM SEX ABUSE" WHY IS THIS HARD) or within public knowledge. You're also completely unwilling to post any citations yourself. Gatestone is still the best proof I have so far. How about you try to contradict them instead of trying to attack their methodology (which you admit you know nothing about)?
Here's an easily findable bit of proof that would allow you to contradict me: Go find me Swedish crime statistics in 2015 that contain information regarding ethnicity. You won't because the policy changed to stop doing it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I've made no such claims, I've been wanting to know how you can accurately decide whether a person is a child or not just by looking at a picture of said person if the person is close to 18 years old. I've made no claims about five-year olds compared to eight-year olds or a twelve-year old compared to a thirty-year old, that's a strawman.
Almighty, I don't know if you're joking or not but none of the pictures of the people earlier in the thread look -anything- close to eighteen. These are some grown guys who are taller than a well-fed Swedish PM.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: The point was that 16-21 Y/O's are just a tad indistinguishable from each other, which is why (don't know about anywhere else) we have those ID checks for people buying alcohol in the Uk.
A lad I went to high school with was capable of growing a full beard at age 15, and was pushing into 6' territory, another of my friends gets briefly annoyed using public transport as he gets child fares dumped on him (he soon stops complaining )
Which is fair enough. My point is that you can get some idea of the age range of a person just by looking at them. Do it like reverse alcohol buying. If they look over eighteen, don't grant them asylum unless they can prove they're under it (using documentation that I'm sure they'll very quickly find when you ask them for burden of proof). Simple!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I've made no such claims, I've been wanting to know how you can accurately decide whether a person is a child or not just by looking at a picture of said person if the person is close to 18 years old. I've made no claims about five-year olds compared to eight-year olds or a twelve-year old compared to a thirty-year old, that's a strawman.
Almighty, I don't know if you're joking or not but none of the pictures of the people earlier in the thread look -anything- close to eighteen. These are some grown guys who are taller than a well-fed Swedish PM.
A prime minister whose height we don't know. And also, I was 6'2 at the age of 17. I rowed with a guy that could grow a full beard and was 6'9 at the age of 15. Kids come in all shapes and sizes, and immediately going "well he looks too tall" is daft.
Besides which, they all (other than possibly the 2nd from the right and the far left (whose face I can't quite make out due to the light falling on it)) look to be younger than me by a good few years, and I'm 21.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I've made no such claims, I've been wanting to know how you can accurately decide whether a person is a child or not just by looking at a picture of said person if the person is close to 18 years old. I've made no claims about five-year olds compared to eight-year olds or a twelve-year old compared to a thirty-year old, that's a strawman.
Almighty, I don't know if you're joking or not but none of the pictures of the people earlier in the thread look -anything- close to eighteen. These are some grown guys who are taller than a well-fed Swedish PM.
A prime minister whose height we don't know. And also, I was 6'2 at the age of 17. I rowed with a guy that could grow a full beard and was 6'9 at the age of 15. Kids come in all shapes and sizes, and immediately going "well he looks too tall" is daft.
Besides which, they all (other than possibly the 2nd from the right and the far left (whose face I can't quite make out due to the light falling on it)) look to be younger than me by a good few years, and I'm 21.
This.
nullBolt wrote: I'm being an arse because you're endless asking for citations. I'd be here for weeks citing every source and claim you're asking for (most of which are easily findable (JUST GOOGLE "ROTHERHAM SEX ABUSE" WHY IS THIS HARD) or within public knowledge.
What is it you want me to do with the knowledge that Rotherham happened? Do you want me to write an opera about it, or are you arguing that it's symptomatic of the police departments in cities with names starting with an "R"? You've just told us to "google Rotherham" without telling us what you want us to do with the information.
nullBolt wrote: You're also completely unwilling to post any citations yourself.
Because I'm not the one claiming that immigrants is the causal effect behind these events? Is it possible that they are? Sure, but your sources wouldn't tell us.
What do you want a citation on, exactly? I'm not making any claims as to whether immigration is correlated to increases in rape statistics or not, I'm pointing out that your "evidence" is inconclusive at best, and outright wrong at worst.
nullBolt wrote: How about you try to contradict them instead of trying to attack their methodology (which you admit you know nothing about)?
Where did I "admit" anything about their methodology? I don't have to contradict them, I just have to point out why their conclusions are faulty. I'm not making the opposite argument to them, I'm pointing out why their argument is rubbish. If that's the best you have, perhaps you should consider trying to find better sources?
nullBolt wrote: Here's an easily findable bit of proof that would allow you to contradict me: Go find me Swedish crime statistics in 2015 that contain information regarding ethnicity. You won't because the policy changed to stop doing it.
What you said was:
nullBolt wrote: You do realise that the Swedish government years ago made it illegal to report ethnicity and immigration status statistics in their crime data because so many rapes were being committed by migrants, right? It was something ridiculous like 21 rapes by a migrant compared to 1 rape by a Swedish man and the amount of migrants was much lower back then, too.
Your argument was that it was made illegal; the absence of said data is not proof that the collecting of such data has been made illegal. I've never argued that the data exists, only that you hadn't backed up the claim that it was made illegal, and you still haven't.
nullBolt wrote: Almighty, I don't know if you're joking or not but none of the pictures of the people earlier in the thread look -anything- close to eighteen. These are some grown guys who are taller than a well-fed Swedish PM.
Which is fair enough. My point is that you can get some idea of the age range of a person just by looking at them. Do it like reverse alcohol buying. If they look over eighteen, don't grant them asylum unless they can prove they're under it (using documentation that I'm sure they'll very quickly find when you ask them for burden of proof). Simple!
How do we decide who "looks over eighteen"? Really?
nullBolt wrote: (using documentation that I'm sure they'll very quickly find when you ask them for burden of proof)
So what you're telling me with this is that you really haven't dealt with many honest to god refugees, and are instead basing most of your understanding off sources that Almighty has already gone to the effort of ripping into. Good to know.
edit: sorry Goliath, accidentally misquoted it so it looked like you thought that haha
Goliath wrote: A prime minister whose height we don't know. And also, I was 6'2 at the age of 17. I rowed with a guy that could grow a full beard and was 6'9 at the age of 15. Kids come in all shapes and sizes, and immediately going "well he looks too tall" is daft.
Besides which, they all (other than possibly the 2nd from the right and the far left (whose face I can't quite make out due to the light falling on it)) look to be younger than me by a good few years, and I'm 21.
Goliath, you're from a country where considerable amounts of calories are on offer at all times, as well as having various chemicals in them that prevent all the sorts of things that stunt growth. Comparing your height to that of "child" refugees is going to be very, very different.
But, looking at the picture, I'll give you that about half of them are probably hovering around 18-21, but the other half I'd say are much, much older.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: What is it you want me to do with the knowledge that Rotherham happened? Do you want me to write an opera about it, or are you arguing that it's symptomatic of the police departments in cities with names starting with an "R"? You've just told us to "google Rotherham" without telling us what you want us to do with the information.
As I have stated multiple times (which you have repeatedly ignored): It's a demonstration of how endemic migrants sexually assaulting girls is.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Because I'm not the one claiming that immigrants is the causal effect behind these events? Is it possible that they are? Sure, but your sources wouldn't tell us.
What do you want a citation on, exactly? I'm not making any claims as to whether immigration is correlated to increases in rape statistics or not, I'm pointing out that your "evidence" is inconclusive at best, and outright wrong at worst.
Citation needed on those claims, Almighty.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Where did I "admit" anything about their methodology? I don't have to contradict them, I just have to point out why their conclusions are faulty. I'm not making the opposite argument to them, I'm pointing out why their argument is rubbish. If that's the best you have, perhaps you should consider trying to find better sources?
You stated that you have no idea what their methodology is and therefore cannot repeat their results. Please get your argument straight.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Your argument was that it was made illegal; the absence of said data is not proof that the collecting of such data has been made illegal. I've never argued that the data exists, only that you hadn't backed up the claim that it was made illegal, and you still haven't.
Admittedly it was a poor choice of phrasing, but the point is the same. The Swedish government was unhappy with how the rape statistics turned out (as in, certain ethnic groups committed sexual assaults and rapes at an overbearing rate) so it is not policy to stop taking ethnicity statistics.
Height, musculature, bone structure, weathering of facial features. Four primary indicators of age.
Also, Almighty, it's highly amusing to see how you're acting like you're not caring now after you seemed very interested earlier. As I said a page back:
nullBolt wrote: Funny how your tune changes as soon as it's not about how all men are rapists but how all migrant men are rapists. I guess tarring one group with a brush is fine (a much bigger, diverse group) but the other isn't?
motyak wrote: So what you're telling me with this is that you really haven't dealt with many honest to god refugees, and are instead basing most of your understanding off sources that Almighty has already gone to the effort of ripping into. Good to know.
edit: sorry Goliath, accidentally misquoted it so it looked like you thought that haha
I'm from Liverpool. Everyone is in the gak together there. I know quite a few migrants (was friends with a few guys from Congo / Liberia in my community college), and I know the tricks that are used to exploit the welfare state.
So, yeah, I do have some understanding beyond the statistical, but that is anecdoctal evidence.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: What is it you want me to do with the knowledge that Rotherham happened? Do you want me to write an opera about it, or are you arguing that it's symptomatic of the police departments in cities with names starting with an "R"? You've just told us to "google Rotherham" without telling us what you want us to do with the information.
As I have stated multiple times (which you have repeatedly ignored): It's a demonstration of how endemic migrants sexually assaulting girls is.
You're going to need a much more rigorous selection than that to prove that sexually assaulting girls is "endemic" among migrants.
What do you want a citation on, exactly? I'm not making any claims as to whether immigration is correlated to increases in rape statistics or not, I'm pointing out that your "evidence" is inconclusive at best, and outright wrong at worst.
Citation needed on those claims, Almighty.
How am I supposed to cite someone else on what I'm saying? Is there someone who's a greter authority on what I mean than myself? Do you even understand what the word "citation" means?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Where did I "admit" anything about their methodology? I don't have to contradict them, I just have to point out why their conclusions are faulty. I'm not making the opposite argument to them, I'm pointing out why their argument is rubbish. If that's the best you have, perhaps you should consider trying to find better sources?
You stated that you have no idea what their methodology is and therefore cannot repeat their results. Please get your argument straight.
Where did I say I didn't have an idea of what their methodology was? I said it was flawed, not that I didn't know what it was. You're either lying or misremembering, and I'm honestly not going to give you the benefit of the doubt anymore, so I'm going to ask you to apologize.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Your argument was that it was made illegal; the absence of said data is not proof that the collecting of such data has been made illegal. I've never argued that the data exists, only that you hadn't backed up the claim that it was made illegal, and you still haven't.
Admittedly it was a poor choice of phrasing, but the point is the same. The Swedish government was unhappy with how the rape statistics turned out (as in, certain ethnic groups committed sexual assaults and rapes at an overbearing rate) so it is not policy to stop taking ethnicity statistics.
"A poor choice of phrasing"? You were wrong, and now you're trying to backtrack to save face. You're also attributing motive to someone (in this case the Swedish government) without providing evidence of your claim.
And are you an expert in the field of pediatrics, human morphology or even medicine in general, or are you just some bloke on the internet who's decided he knows better than people who've studied the subjects?
Also, Almighty, it's highly amusing to see how you're acting like you're not caring now after you seemed very interested earlier. As I said a page back:
nullBolt wrote: Funny how your tune changes as soon as it's not about how all men are rapists but how all migrant men are rapists. I guess tarring one group with a brush is fine (a much bigger, diverse group) but the other isn't?
Just where are you getting that from anyway? I'm pretty sure you're going to have a hard time finding evidence that I've ever said that "all men are rapists" outside of a sentence like this explaining that I haven't. But by all means, keep up your ad hominem attacks, I'm sure that's going to be popular after repeated warnings to stop it.
I've never claimed not to care, either, so good luck proving that, while you're at it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You're going to need a much more rigorous selection than that to prove that sexually assaulting girls is "endemic" among migrants.
If a girl is raped in Sweden, the chance of it being a migrant compared to a Swede is 5:1, despite the migrants making up a much smaller percentage of the population. Germany on New Year's Eve, where hundreds of girls were sexually assaulted and attacked with fireworks by migrants. Rotherham, where children were raped and used as prostitutes by migrants.
How much information do you need before you accept it's endemic? Will any proof be enough for you or will you just carry on saying "citation needed" instead of accepting the facts?
Will it only be when every girl in Sweden has been raped that you will be satisfied, Almighty? Or will it be necessary for it to happen to someone close to you before you wake up and open your eyes?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How am I supposed to cite someone else on what I'm saying? Is there someone who's a greter authority on what I mean than myself? Do you even understand what the word "citation" means?
Do you even know what the word "citation" means? Because you've been using it frivolously since this thread started.
The reality of it is that you have no facts to back up any of your arguments so you just throw mud at the other side's facts in the hopes that some of it will stick and you'll be able to feel better about it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Where did I say I didn't have an idea of what their methodology was? I said it was flawed, not that I didn't know what it was. You're either lying or misremembering, and I'm honestly not going to give you the benefit of the doubt anymore, so I'm going to ask you to apologize.
Do you know what their methodology was, then? How do you know they didn't control for any problems? Can you cite their methodology for me?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: "A poor choice of phrasing"? You were wrong, and now you're trying to backtrack to save face. You're also attributing motive to someone (in this case the Swedish government) without providing evidence of your claim.
Getting a bit desperate there, Almighty. Clinging onto whatever lifeline you can possibly have regarding this. What other reasons could the very left-wing pro-immigration Swedish government have for removing ethnicity from statistics? Do tell.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And are you an expert in the field of pediatrics, human morphology or even medicine in general, or are you just some bloke on the internet who's decided he knows better than people who've studied the subjects?
Are you? Because you've not provided me with anything to directly refute the concept that you can get some idea of a person's age by looking at them.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Just where are you getting that from anyway? I'm pretty sure you're going to have a hard time finding evidence that I've ever said that "all men are rapists" outside of a sentence like this explaining that I haven't. But by all means, keep up your ad hominem attacks, I'm sure that's going to be popular after repeated warnings to stop it.
I've never claimed not to care, either, so good luck proving that, while you're at it.
Your opinion changes from:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Absolutely, flabbergastingly stupid behaviour by the police if the allegations are true (and seeing as the police are more or less admitting, they probably are).
To whatever your current crazed opinion is after I start to point out that the Swedish police force has a policy of reporting crimes in a certain way to avoid blame being put onto certain ethnic groups.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You're going to need a much more rigorous selection than that to prove that sexually assaulting girls is "endemic" among migrants.
If a girl is raped in Sweden, the chance of it being a migrant compared to a Swede is 5:1, despite the migrants making up a much smaller percentage of the population. Germany on New Year's Eve, where hundreds of girls were sexually assaulted and attacked with fireworks by migrants. Rotherham, where children were raped and used as prostitutes by migrants.
How much information do you need before you accept it's endemic? Will any proof be enough for you or will you just carry on saying "citation needed" instead of accepting the facts?
Will it only be when every girl in Sweden has been raped that you will be satisfied, Almighty? Or will it be necessary for it to happen to someone close to you before you wake up and open your eyes?
See, the thing is, if one claims that rape is endemic you get called out for being an SJW, or Feminazi, but all of a sudden we're all very concerned when it's due to immigrants.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How am I supposed to cite someone else on what I'm saying? Is there someone who's a greter authority on what I mean than myself? Do you even understand what the word "citation" means?
Do you even know what the word "citation" means? Because you've been using it frivolously since this thread started.
The reality of it is that you have no facts to back up any of your arguments so you just throw mud at the other side's facts in the hopes that some of it will stick and you'll be able to feel better about it.
The argument I'm making is that your arguments are flawed. I'm not commenting pro- or anti-anything other than the fact that your "sources" are awful and half of your statements of "fact" are entirely unsupported. That's not throwing mud, that's how an argument works.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Where did I say I didn't have an idea of what their methodology was? I said it was flawed, not that I didn't know what it was. You're either lying or misremembering, and I'm honestly not going to give you the benefit of the doubt anymore, so I'm going to ask you to apologize.
Do you know what their methodology was, then? How do you know they didn't control for any problems? Can you cite their methodology for me?
Their methodology, as evidenced by the link you used, is to point out the fact that it's nearly impossible to compare such data across nations with any degree of accuracy and then simply dismiss that as a "strange" explanation. They've literally hand-waved it away. They don't even attempt to rebutt it, they just pretend the major flaw in their comparison doesn't exist and run with it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: "A poor choice of phrasing"? You were wrong, and now you're trying to backtrack to save face. You're also attributing motive to someone (in this case the Swedish government) without providing evidence of your claim.
Getting a bit desperate there, Almighty. Clinging onto whatever lifeline you can possibly have regarding this. What other reasons could the very left-wing pro-immigration Swedish government have for removing ethnicity from statistics? Do tell.
Now you're claiming that the left-wing government was the one which removed ethnicity from the report, and yet in the 2005 report used by Gatestone to support their claim the fact that immigrants from North Africa and their offspring have a higher incidence of crime actually explicitly says that's the case on page 35. From 2006 to 2014 the government was centre-right, so blaming this percieved shift of yours on the left is clearly not correct.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And are you an expert in the field of pediatrics, human morphology or even medicine in general, or are you just some bloke on the internet who's decided he knows better than people who've studied the subjects?
Are you? Because you've not provided me with anything to directly refute the concept that you can get some idea of a person's age by looking at them.
Mainly because you've yet to support that argument beyond "oh, I look at their face and... stuff". There's nothing to refute.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Just where are you getting that from anyway? I'm pretty sure you're going to have a hard time finding evidence that I've ever said that "all men are rapists" outside of a sentence like this explaining that I haven't. But by all means, keep up your ad hominem attacks, I'm sure that's going to be popular after repeated warnings to stop it.
I've never claimed not to care, either, so good luck proving that, while you're at it.
Your opinion changes from:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Absolutely, flabbergastingly stupid behaviour by the police if the allegations are true (and seeing as the police are more or less admitting, they probably are).
To whatever your current crazed opinion is after I start to point out that the Swedish police force has a policy of reporting crimes in a certain way to avoid blame being put onto certain ethnic groups.
Have I ever stated that I've changed my opinion from my first post in this thread? I still think it's flabbergastingly stupid behaviour, just like I think it's stupid that there's no current crime statistics in respect to ethnicity, I just don't go around pretending that the absence of data supports my worldview.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: See, the thing is, if one claims that rape is endemic you get called out for being an SJW, or Feminazi, but all of a sudden we're all very concerned when it's due to immigrants.
That's because rape isn't endemic except amongst cultures that encourage it (ie the cultures of the migrants currently entering the EU).
Answer the question, though. When does it become endemic, Walrus? When every girl in Sweden has been gangraped half to death?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The argument I'm making is that your arguments are flawed. I'm not commenting pro- or anti-anything other than the fact that your "sources" are awful and half of your statements of "fact" are entirely unsupported. That's not throwing mud, that's how an argument works.
So you're claiming you're completely partisan?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Their methodology, as evidenced by the link you used, is to point out the fact that it's nearly impossible to compare such data across nations with any degree of accuracy and then simply dismiss that as a "strange" explanation. They've literally hand-waved it away. They don't even attempt to rebutt it, they just pretend the major flaw in their comparison doesn't exist and run with it.
Probably because a lot of the "explanations" are shared across EU boundaries without the same level of statistics.
As an example, rape is any sort of sexual penetration in Germany but Germany's rape statistics are MUCH lower than Sweden's.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Now you're claiming that the left-wing government was the one which removed ethnicity from the report, and yet in the 2005 report used by Gatestone to support their claim the fact that immigrants from North Africa and their offspring have a higher incidence of crime actually explicitly says that's the case on page 35. From 2006 to 2014 the government was centre-right, so blaming this percieved shift of yours on the left is clearly not correct.
Centre-right for Sweden =/= Centre right for the rest of the world. Centre-right for Sweden is Britain's far, far flying rodent gak leftists.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Mainly because you've yet to support that argument beyond "oh, I look at their face and... stuff". There's nothing to refute.
Again: Are you actually saying you can't tell someone's age by looking at them?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just to add on to what AlmightyWalrus believes the centre-right prime minister to be, the guy is called Fredrik Reinfeldt and he's famous for saying that Sweden should "not belong to the Swedish" and that "the Swedish are a very boring ethnic group".
AlmightyWalrus wrote: See, the thing is, if one claims that rape is endemic you get called out for being an SJW, or Feminazi, but all of a sudden we're all very concerned when it's due to immigrants.
That's because rape isn't endemic except amongst cultures that encourage it (ie the cultures of the migrants currently entering the EU).
Answer the question, though. When does it become endemic, Walrus? When every girl in Sweden has been gangraped half to death?
I'd argue that it's already endemic, but not because of immigration.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The argument I'm making is that your arguments are flawed. I'm not commenting pro- or anti-anything other than the fact that your "sources" are awful and half of your statements of "fact" are entirely unsupported. That's not throwing mud, that's how an argument works.
So you're claiming you're completely partisan?
I'm claiming that the only thing I've been consistently anti in this thread is you, because your arguments are sloppy.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Their methodology, as evidenced by the link you used, is to point out the fact that it's nearly impossible to compare such data across nations with any degree of accuracy and then simply dismiss that as a "strange" explanation. They've literally hand-waved it away. They don't even attempt to rebutt it, they just pretend the major flaw in their comparison doesn't exist and run with it.
Probably because a lot of the "explanations" are shared across EU boundaries without the same level of statistics.
As an example, rape is any sort of sexual penetration in Germany but Germany's rape statistics are MUCH lower than Sweden's.
In recent years, several revisions to the definition of rape have been made in Swedish law,[3] to now not only include intercourse, but comparable sexual acts initiated against someone passive—incapable of giving consent—because they are in a vulnerable situation, such as a state of fear or unconsciousness.[4]
In other words, you thought that Germany and Sweden were comparable in definition when they were demonstrably not. Are you starting to see why I'm scoffing at the Gatestone methodology yet?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Now you're claiming that the left-wing government was the one which removed ethnicity from the report, and yet in the 2005 report used by Gatestone to support their claim the fact that immigrants from North Africa and their offspring have a higher incidence of crime actually explicitly says that's the case on page 35. From 2006 to 2014 the government was centre-right, so blaming this percieved shift of yours on the left is clearly not correct.
Centre-right for Sweden =/= Centre right for the rest of the world. Centre-right for Sweden is Britain's far, far flying rodent gak leftists.
You're going to love this: citation needed. On what basis do you place the Swedish Moderate Party at the same place as Britain's "far, far flying rodent gak leftists"? Who constitute Britain's "far, far flying rodent gak leftists"?
Just to add on to what AlmightyWalrus believes the centre-right prime minister to be, the guy is called Fredrik Reinfeldt and he's famous for saying that Sweden should "not belong to the Swedish" and that "the Swedish are a very boring ethnic group".
That's centre-right in Sweden, guys.
Where did he say that Sweden should "not belong to the Swedish" (bear in mind that something "belonging" to someone isn't the same as that person "owning" it), and where did he say that "the Swedish are a very boring ethnic group"? He was arguing along classical liberal lines that an open society is stronger than one that is closed. Hardly left-wing, unless one is to the right of Genghis Khan to start with.
d-usa wrote: Has the first Swedish girl been gang-raped to death?
There was that Swedish mother of two who worked in the refugee camped. She was gang-raped and then left wheelchair bound. There's a bunch of other stories, all equally gruesome, but no deaths just yet (as far as we know).
d-usa wrote: Has the first Swedish girl been gang-raped to death?
There was that Swedish mother of two who worked in the refugee camped. She was gang-raped and then left wheelchair bound. There's a bunch of other stories, all equally gruesome, but no deaths just yet (as far as we know).
You know what I'm going to say to this, don't you?
EDIT: Actually, lemme fix that source for you so that someone gets it done.
In recent years, several revisions to the definition of rape have been made in Swedish law,[3] to now not only include intercourse, but comparable sexual acts initiated against someone passive—incapable of giving consent—because they are in a vulnerable situation, such as a state of fear or unconsciousness.[4]
In other words, you thought that Germany and Sweden were comparable in definition when they were demonstrably not. Are you starting to see why I'm scoffing at the Gatestone methodology yet?
That's literally the same ALL OVER THE WEST, Walrus. If a girl's drunk and you have sex with her (even if you're drunk at the same time), that is counted as rape. It's the same in the UK, the USA, Germany etc etc. If someone is in a vulnerable state and in fear for their lives, that's still rape!
There is very little difference. So why have Sweden's rape statistics shot up when the rest of the world's hasn't?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You're going to love this: citation needed. On what basis do you place the Swedish Moderate Party at the same place as Britain's "far, far flying rodent gak leftists"? Who constitute Britain's "far, far flying rodent gak leftists"?
God knows, Britain doesn't really have any far-left political parties. Just trust me when I say our centre-right political parties would be Sweden's far, far rights.
Common knowledge doesn't need citing, Walrus.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Yes, I'm saying that it's impossible to tell in certain circumstances.
Probably true, but certain circumstances is not all the time. You acknowledge that the vast majority of the time you will be able to tell?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Where did he say that Sweden should "not belong to the Swedish" (bear in mind that something "belonging" to someone isn't the same as that person "owning" it), and where did he say that "the Swedish are a very boring ethnic group"? He was arguing along classical liberal lines that an open society is stronger than one that is closed. Hardly left-wing, unless one is to the right of Genghis Khan to start with.
POLITIK. Moderaternas avgående partiledare Fredrik Reinfeldt bröt tystnaden och gjorde inför julaftonen ett nytt vänsterpolitiskt uttalande apropå det kommande nyvalet. Den före detta statsministern hävdar nu att Sveriges gränser är påhittade och att Sverige tillhör de invandrare som kommer hit – inte svenskarna.
Uttalandena gjordes med anledning av det planerade nyvalet nästa år och Reinfeldt bekräftade Mattias Karlssons (SD) uppfattning om att valet i första hand är en omröstning om invandringen.
– Det är ett vägval om vilket land Sverige ska vara, sade Reinfeldt till TV4.
– Är det här ett land som ägs av dem som har bott här i tre eller fyra generationer eller är Sverige vad människor som kommer hit mitt i livet gör det till att vara och utvecklar det till? frågade han sig retoriskt.
– För mig är det självklart att det ska vara det senare och att det är ett starkare och bättre samhälle om det får vara öppet, konstaterade Reinfeldt sedan.
I samband med TV4:s "Nyhetsmorgon" under julaftonens morgon gick han ännu längre och hävdade att Sveriges gränser bara är påhittade.
– Vad är Sverige för land? Ägs det här landet av dem som bott här i fyra generationer eller de som hittat på någon gräns? sade han nedlåtande.
Därefter menade han att svenskarna är ointressanta som folkgrupp och att det istället är invandrarna som skapar det nya Sverige.
– Det är vad de gör av Sverige som är Sverige, hävdade han.
The Moderates departing party leader Fredrik Reinfeldt broke the silence before Christmas Eve, and made a new political statement before the upcoming new election. The former prime minister now claims that Sweden's borders are fictional and that Sweden belongs to the immigrants who come here - not the Swedes.
Reinfeldt confirmed Mattias Karlsson (SD) perception that elections are primarily a vote on immigration.
- It is a choice of what country Sweden should be, Reinfeldt told TV4.
- Is this a country that is owned by those who have lived here for three or four generations or is Sweden what people who come here in mid-life makes it to be? he asked rhetorically.
- For me it is obvious that it should be the latter and that it is a stronger and better society if it may be open, said Reinfeldt.
In connection with TV4's "Nyhetsmorgon" during the Christmas Eve morning he went even further, claiming that Sweden's borders are only imaginary.
- What is Sweden? Is this country owned by those who lived here for four generations or those who invented borders? he said condescending.
Then he said that the Swedes are uninteresting as an ethnic group and that it is instead the immigrants that creates the new Sweden.
- It is what they do in Sweden that is Sweden, he claimed.
Looking at the other page, as d-usa said, the number of rape convictions has dropped since 2005. If there is an epidemic caused by migrants flooding the country, why is the conviction rate going down?
d-usa wrote: So not a single dead girl that will somehow into every girl being raped to death?
Because being paralysed from the waist down after being brutally gang-raped for seven hours is nothing to worry about.
Maybe I'm just a liberal simpleton, but I always figure that people should talk correctly about the problem that is actually happening.
Like "immigrants have a different value system and they are not from a culture that respects women and they are more likely to commit sexual assault, so let's address that" instead of "Muslims will rape every single girl in our country to DEATH, rapes are up 1300%!!!!!!!!!"
Talk about the real issues with real facts and you will be taken seriously. Post junk statistics and bs "facts" if you want, but then don't be surprised if the tiny nuggets of truth get thrown out with the bath water when people stop listening to stuff that is largely manufactured.
I'm pretty sure that Walrus is feeling the same way as me there. Neither of us are denying that there is a problem, we are just countering junk statistics about the problem.
In recent years, several revisions to the definition of rape have been made in Swedish law,[3] to now not only include intercourse, but comparable sexual acts initiated against someone passive—incapable of giving consent—because they are in a vulnerable situation, such as a state of fear or unconsciousness.[4]
In other words, you thought that Germany and Sweden were comparable in definition when they were demonstrably not. Are you starting to see why I'm scoffing at the Gatestone methodology yet?
That's literally the same ALL OVER THE WEST, Walrus. If a girl's drunk and you have sex with her (even if you're drunk at the same time), that is counted as rape. It's the same in the UK, the USA, Germany etc etc. If someone is in a vulnerable state and in fear for their lives, that's still rape!
There is very little difference. So why have Sweden's rape statistics shot up when the rest of the world's hasn't?
Do you want me to put more emphasis on the important part, or will that be enough?
God knows, Britain doesn't really have any far-left political parties. Just trust me when I say our centre-right political parties would be Sweden's far, far rights.
Common knowledge doesn't need citing, Walrus.
I wouldn't take your word that the sky was blue. Citation needed.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Yes, I'm saying that it's impossible to tell in certain circumstances.
Probably true, but certain circumstances is not all the time. You acknowledge that the vast majority of the time you will be able to tell?
Those certain circumstances being when someone is close to the age of 18, which is the ones that matter. It really doesn't matter if you can tell a five-year old isn't sixty, because that doesn't mean you can tell a nineteen-year old isn't seventeen, or vice versa. You're essentially advocating the dismantling of due process for asylum seekers, and you have the gall to claim that it's the left that's crazy?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Where did he say that Sweden should "not belong to the Swedish" (bear in mind that something "belonging" to someone isn't the same as that person "owning" it), and where did he say that "the Swedish are a very boring ethnic group"? He was arguing along classical liberal lines that an open society is stronger than one that is closed. Hardly left-wing, unless one is to the right of Genghis Khan to start with.
POLITIK. Moderaternas avgående partiledare Fredrik Reinfeldt bröt tystnaden och gjorde inför julaftonen ett nytt vänsterpolitiskt uttalande apropå det kommande nyvalet. Den före detta statsministern hävdar nu att Sveriges gränser är påhittade och att Sverige tillhör de invandrare som kommer hit – inte svenskarna.
Uttalandena gjordes med anledning av det planerade nyvalet nästa år och Reinfeldt bekräftade Mattias Karlssons (SD) uppfattning om att valet i första hand är en omröstning om invandringen.
– Det är ett vägval om vilket land Sverige ska vara, sade Reinfeldt till TV4.
– Är det här ett land som ägs av dem som har bott här i tre eller fyra generationer eller är Sverige vad människor som kommer hit mitt i livet gör det till att vara och utvecklar det till? frågade han sig retoriskt.
– För mig är det självklart att det ska vara det senare och att det är ett starkare och bättre samhälle om det får vara öppet, konstaterade Reinfeldt sedan.
I samband med TV4:s "Nyhetsmorgon" under julaftonens morgon gick han ännu längre och hävdade att Sveriges gränser bara är påhittade.
– Vad är Sverige för land? Ägs det här landet av dem som bott här i fyra generationer eller de som hittat på någon gräns? sade han nedlåtande.
Därefter menade han att svenskarna är ointressanta som folkgrupp och att det istället är invandrarna som skapar det nya Sverige.
– Det är vad de gör av Sverige som är Sverige, hävdade han.
The Moderates departing party leader Fredrik Reinfeldt broke the silence before Christmas Eve, and made a new political statement before the upcoming new election. The former prime minister now claims that Sweden's borders are fictional and that Sweden belongs to the immigrants who come here - not the Swedes.
Reinfeldt confirmed Mattias Karlsson (SD) perception that elections are primarily a vote on immigration.
- It is a choice of what country Sweden should be, Reinfeldt told TV4.
- Is this a country that is owned by those who have lived here for three or four generations or is Sweden what people who come here in mid-life makes it to be? he asked rhetorically.
- For me it is obvious that it should be the latter and that it is a stronger and better society if it may be open, said Reinfeldt.
In connection with TV4's "Nyhetsmorgon" during the Christmas Eve morning he went even further, claiming that Sweden's borders are only imaginary.
- What is Sweden? Is this country owned by those who lived here for four generations or those who invented borders? he said condescending.
Then he said that the Swedes are uninteresting as an ethnic group and that it is instead the immigrants that creates the new Sweden.
- It is what they do in Sweden that is Sweden, he claimed.
/quote]
You'll note that your source is using emotional buzzwords ("concesdending") and making political assumptions (confirmation of Mattias Karlsson's views) based on the source's own political goals.
Anyhow, the first source link used in that article is the same clip that you posted earlier in the thread. The article leaves out the greater context from the second video, where it's clear that Reinfeldt is talking about whether it's fair to assume that immigrants should uncritically and without complaining drop their entire identity and completely assimilate into Swedish society:
After the comment about who "owns" Sweden, the following is also said:
Reporter: Att tala så tydligt om sin övertygelse om att Sverige måste ta ansvar för människor på flykt är ett personligt och politiskt beslut Fredrik Reinfeldt inte backat från sedan det uppmärksammade talet i somras.
Reinfeldt: Det måste liksom få konsekvenser, jag måste stå upp motde som hävdar att "det här är ett land som stängdes för tre generationer sedan och ingen annan är välkommen" och "kommer de hit så ska de anpassa sig och de ska aldrig räcka upp handen och aldrig säga någonting som är avvikande". För mig är det ett ohållbart samhälle.
My translation:
Reporter: Speaking so clearly about his conviction that Sweden has to take responsibility for fleeing humans is a personal and political decision Fredrik Reinfeldt hasn't backed down from since the noted speech last summer.
Reinfeldt: It sort of has to have consequences, I have to make a stand against those that claim that "this is a land that was closed three generations ago and no one else is welcome" and "if they come here they should adapt and they should never raise their hands and never say anything divergent". For me that is an unsustainable society.
I'm starting to see a pattern in your sources where they leave out things that don't suit them.
EDIT: Actually, lemme fix that source for you so that someone gets it done.
There we go! That wasn't that hard.
The fact that I had to get a source for you is rather indicative of your lack of argumentational skill. As you way, it wasn't that hard, so why didn't you provide a source in the first place instead of being lazy?
d-usa wrote: So not a single dead girl that will somehow into every girl being raped to death?
Because being paralysed from the waist down after being brutally gang-raped for seven hours is nothing to worry about.
Maybe I'm just a liberal simpleton, but I always figure that people should talk correctly about the problem that is actually happening.
Like "immigrants have a different value system and they are not from a culture that respects women and they are more likely to commit sexual assault, so let's address that" instead of "Muslims will rape every single girl in our country to DEATH, rapes are up 1300%!!!!!!!!!"
Talk about the real issues with real facts and you will be taken seriously. Post junk statistics and bs "facts" if you want, but then don't be surprised if the tiny nuggets of truth get thrown out with the bath water when people stop listening to stuff that is largely manufactured.
I'm pretty sure that Walrus is feeling the same way as me there. Neither of us are denying that there is a problem, we are just countering junk statistics about the problem.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Looking at the other page, as d-usa said, the number of rape convictions has dropped since 2005. If there is an epidemic caused by migrants flooding the country, why is the conviction rate going down?
Police incompetence / policy. Look at the fact that the police didn't arrest any of the hundreds of migrants that were escorted out of the festival after they sexually assaulted little girls.
Sweden's rape conviction rate is abysmal, too:
In 2009, Amnesty International published a report on rape in the Nordic countries, criticizing the low conviction rates in Sweden, citing previously published estimates from Brå of around 30,000 incidents of rape, with less than 13 percent of the 3,535 rape crimes reported resulting in a decision to start legal proceedings and 216 persons convicted in 2007.
d-usa wrote: Maybe I'm just a liberal simpleton, but I always figure that people should talk correctly about the problem that is actually happening.
Like "immigrants have a different value system and they are not from a culture that respects women and they are more likely to commit sexual assault, so let's address that" instead of "Muslims will rape every single girl in our country to DEATH, rapes are up 1300%!!!!!!!!!"
Talk about the real issues with real facts and you will be taken seriously. Post junk statistics and bs "facts" if you want, but then don't be surprised if the tiny nuggets of truth get thrown out with the bath water when people stop listening to stuff that is largely manufactured.
I'm pretty sure that Walrus is feeling the same way as me there. Neither of us are denying that there is a problem, we are just countering junk statistics about the problem.
In Sweden, rape reports are up 1300%, though, so I don't understand your point.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Do you want me to put more emphasis on the important part, or will that be enough?
Which is the same in Germany. A girl can be penetrated by any part of a body and it's counted as rape. Look it up.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Those certain circumstances being when someone is close to the age of 18, which is the ones that matter. It really doesn't matter if you can tell a five-year old isn't sixty, because that doesn't mean you can tell a nineteen-year old isn't seventeen, or vice versa. You're essentially advocating the dismantling of due process for asylum seekers, and you have the gall to claim that it's the left that's crazy?
Except allowing them due process forces a country to take them. It's either one or the other, there's no way around it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The fact that I had to get a source for you is rather indicative of your lack of argumentational skill. As you way, it wasn't that hard, so why didn't you provide a source in the first place instead of being lazy?
Which means there were 500~ reported rapes when they started admitting refugees, which is very much a "normal" amount of rapes for a country of Sweden's size.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Do you want me to put more emphasis on the important part, or will that be enough?
Which is the same in Germany. A girl can be penetrated by any part of a body and it's counted as rape. Look it up.
Not the same at all, because the Swedish definition does not require penetration. It says so right in the part I bolded for you. Look it up, as you're fond of saying.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Those certain circumstances being when someone is close to the age of 18, which is the ones that matter. It really doesn't matter if you can tell a five-year old isn't sixty, because that doesn't mean you can tell a nineteen-year old isn't seventeen, or vice versa. You're essentially advocating the dismantling of due process for asylum seekers, and you have the gall to claim that it's the left that's crazy?
Except allowing them due process forces a country to take them. It's either one or the other, there's no way around it.
The right to due process is, in my opinion, non-negotiable. It's the bedrock of modern society. No rights or obligations matter if due process does not exist.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The fact that I had to get a source for you is rather indicative of your lack of argumentational skill. As you way, it wasn't that hard, so why didn't you provide a source in the first place instead of being lazy?
Because I don't speak Swedish?
In which case, why have you been linking so many sources in Swedish and Danish? Are you honestly telling me that you're just linking stuff without actually being able to read them yourself?
Which means there were 500~ reported rapes when they started admitting refugees, which is very much a "normal" amount of rapes for a country of Sweden's size.
Plus, the whole part where you're still pretending penetration is the same thing as "not only include intercourse, but comparable sexual acts initiated against someone passive".
And again, before the change in the definition of rape, there were ~2,200 reported rapes in 2003 compared to nearly 6,000 in 2010 (via the BBC source I posted earlier). If we completely ignore the change in definition of what crimes are reported as rape and pretend that it remained exactly the same, that's "only" an increase of 172%.
In 2014 there were 6,700 reported cases, an increase of 11% since 2010 and an increase of 205% since 2003.
The refugee crisis started last year, so it's pretty obvious that they are not the source of the jump, we don't even have any data published that includes the timeframe of their arrival.
So even ignoring a ton of facts and tweaking the numbers as much in favor as we can towards the "immigrants are raping our women" argument, we don't get anywhere close to 1,300% increase in rapes. Stop posting junk stats.
Again: the highest contributing factor in the jump of reported rapes is the very comprehensive definition of what is considered rape in Sweden and the excellent job they have done making women, and men, feel comfortable enough to report them without feeling ashamed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And again, Assange is wanted for rape in Sweden because he said he wore a condom when he didn't.
So you're saying the only way to solve the problem of rapists is to castrate everyone?
Great plan, Walrus.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Not the same at all, because the Swedish definition does not require penetration. It says so right in the part I bolded for you. Look it up, as you're fond of saying.
What does a "comparable sexual act" constitute, exactly? It says not intercourse but vaginal penetration is not intercourse if the penis is not involved. Maybe I've misunderstood, but I have no idea what that means. It's almost as bad as Sweden taking a "feminist military policy" against Russia. What does that even mean, Walrus?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The right to due process is, in my opinion, non-negotiable. It's the bedrock of modern society. No rights or obligations matter if due process does not exist.
In criminal courts, yes. Otherwise, no.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: In which case, why have you been linking so many sources in Swedish and Danish? Are you honestly telling me that you're just linking stuff without actually being able to read them yourself?
Plus, the whole part where you're still pretending penetration is the same thing as "not only include intercourse, but comparable sexual acts initiated against someone passive".
Because educated first world Jews == Uneducated third world economic migrants.
d-usa wrote: And again, before the change in the definition of rape, there were ~2,200 reported rapes in 2003 compared to nearly 6,000 in 2010 (via the BBC source I posted earlier). If we completely ignore the change in definition of what crimes are reported as rape and pretend that it remained exactly the same, that's "only" an increase of 172%.
In 2014 there were 6,700 reported cases, an increase of 11% since 2010 and an increase of 205% since 2003.
The refugee crisis started last year, so it's pretty obvious that they are not the source of the jump, we don't even have any data published that includes the timeframe of their arrival.
So even ignoring a ton of facts and tweaking the numbers as much in favor as we can towards the "immigrants are raping our women" argument, we don't get anywhere close to 1,300% increase in rapes. Stop posting junk stats.
Again: the highest contributing factor in the jump of reported rapes is the very comprehensive definition of what is considered rape in Sweden and the excellent job they have done making women, and men, feel comfortable enough to report them without feeling ashamed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And again, Assange is wanted for rape in Sweden because he said he wore a condom when he didn't.
Sweden has been taking migrants for a lot, lot, lot longer than last year. Sweden has been taking migrants en masse for over 30 years now and it's brought the country's economy to almost breaking point. Sweden will be a third world country by 2030 according to the UN.
Regarding Assange: Rape by deception is a thing the Western world over, as is sex under false pretences.
LordofHats wrote: I could have sworn I left that goal post over here. What the hell is it doing over there?
Damn it who keeps moving my goal posts? I have to pay for these things if they get lost!
:p
Sweden did start taking economic migrants en masse from the 1950s onwards but they were mainly from war torn Soviet bloc countries. If we take it from 1950, then it's been a 1900% increase in rape accusations.
I don't even know where the discussion is anymore.
In 1970, Sweden had 692 reported rapes. Well, that's only a 900% increase!
The next bit is a secret.
Spoiler:
If you look at the graph and look at this data, you can see the direct correlation between immigration and rape rates. Don't tell anyone, though!
Now I'm not accusing you of doing this, but here is a quick primer on how to actually read statistics and how to analyze evidence that is handed to you and actually interpret it instead of simply believing that it means what other people tell you it means.
The next bit is a secret:
Spoiler:
I am accusing you of doing it
Step 1: The very first rule when dealing with statistical trends is to never look at the total number when dealing with long term projections. It's fine when you are looking at a decade or less, but any longer than that and raw numbers are useless because they don't account for population growth. In those cases you should always look at the "rate per 100,000" numbers. So again, best case scenario for your claim is a 695% increase in reported rapes.
Step 2: Look at is where the report got their numbers from, and if there may have been changes made to the definition of rape or the way the data is collected. Thankfully, the report is pretty clear on that:
Sweden Section of law (2010) CC Chap. 6, § 1 Changes in legislation 1965, 1984, 1992, 1998, 2005 Revision of statistical routines 1965, 1968, 1975, 1992-, 1995, 1999
I did my best to try to mark these changes on the graph:
So it seems that for the most part Sweden is pretty much in line with the other countries, with a noticable jump whenever they changed either the definition of what is considered rape, or changed the way they collected rape statistics. The chart doesn't tell us much about migration, nor where migrants came from. It does however say "in this year the law changed" and "in this year, the numbers spiked".
Which brings us back to this point: the highest contributing factor in the jump of reported rapes is the very comprehensive definition of what is considered rape in Sweden and the excellent job they have done making women, and men, feel comfortable enough to report them without feeling ashamed.
While i was serving in afghanistan(Kunar province) we where approched by fathers whose daughters were assulted.
We wer'nt allowed to do anything, sad to say.
These people are animals.
Europeans have very little idea what these animals think of your little girls and pretty ladies.
And thats the saddest thing of all...
We wer'nt allowed to do anything, sad to say.
These people are animals.
Your commanders?
A subset of people who live in a country with little to no functional government, never mind the rule of law, in nearly 2 generations is a very bad metric to measure an entire religion against.
A subset of people who live in a country with little to no functional government, never mind the rule of law, in nearly 2 generations is a very bad metric to measure an entire religion against.
That's a fair point, as we all know women's rights is just peachy in the broader Muslim world outside of Afghanistan.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Not the same at all, because the Swedish definition does not require penetration. It says so right in the part I bolded for you. Look it up, as you're fond of saying.
What does a "comparable sexual act" constitute, exactly? It says not intercourse but vaginal penetration is not intercourse if the penis is not involved. Maybe I've misunderstood, but I have no idea what that means. It's almost as bad as Sweden taking a "feminist military policy" against Russia. What does that even mean, Walrus?
I imagine the rubbing of erogenous zones would constitute a "comparable sexual act", but I'm not a legal scholar.
For what it's worth, the German law in section 177 covers cases where the perpetrator uses force, the threat of force, or abuses a position of power, whereas the Swedish law (6 kap. 1 §) defines it as being coerced through "assault, threat of force, or other criminal act" (emphasis mine), which is by far broader than simply covering physical, immediate threats or positions of formal power over the victim.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The right to due process is, in my opinion, non-negotiable. It's the bedrock of modern society. No rights or obligations matter if due process does not exist.
In criminal courts, yes. Otherwise, no.
The right to due process and its equal application to everyone is the central tenent of the rule of law. Simply dismissing someone without even hearing their claim is illegal.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: In which case, why have you been linking so many sources in Swedish and Danish? Are you honestly telling me that you're just linking stuff without actually being able to read them yourself?
I run it through Google Translate.
]
I don't know how to respond to this. I haven't got the faintest clue where to start.
Plus, the whole part where you're still pretending penetration is the same thing as "not only include intercourse, but comparable sexual acts initiated against someone passive".
Because educated first world Jews == Uneducated third world economic migrants.
Time for your favourite expression: citation needed on the level of education.
Sweden has been taking migrants for a lot, lot, lot longer than last year. Sweden has been taking migrants en masse for over 30 years now and it's brought the country's economy to almost breaking point. Sweden will be a third world country by 2030 according to the UN.
Sweden's already a third-world country; we weren't aligned with NATO or the Soviet Union during the Cold War, which technically makes us third world.
I'd just like to point out that the source you used also ran this charming article claiming that Sweden are training asylum seekers to become "killing machines". Further, the study they listed as source for the claim points out on page 2 that:
The projections suggest a possible future for the progression of HDIs, but are not designed to be predictive as changes in conditions and policies will impact a particular country’s HDI. Further, unanticipated “shocks,” such as war, economic sanctions, epidemics, and environmental calamities may negatively impact the HDI, while other shocks such as cures for prevalent diseases such as malaria and HIV/AIDS, end of conflict, sudden dramatic investments in and take-up of education, can positively impact a country’s HDI. Thus, the projections should be interpreted as what might occur based on a past global experience with HDI growth, not a normative suggestion as to what will occur.
A subset of people who live in a country with little to no functional government, never mind the rule of law, in nearly 2 generations is a very bad metric to measure an entire religion against.
That's a fair point, as we all know women's rights is just peachy in the broader Muslim world outside of Afghanistan.
So it seems that for the most part Sweden is pretty much in line with the other countries, with a noticable jump whenever they changed either the definition of what is considered rape, or changed the way they collected rape statistics. The chart doesn't tell us much about migration, nor where migrants came from. It does however say "in this year the law changed" and "in this year, the numbers spiked".
Which brings us back to this point: the highest contributing factor in the jump of reported rapes is the very comprehensive definition of what is considered rape in Sweden and the excellent job they have done making women, and men, feel comfortable enough to report them without feeling ashamed.
What are you even talking about? You... You made this graph. Are we looking at the same thing here? Most of legislation changes are then followed by steady growth, not peaks, and the ones that ARE followed by peaks fall back down into the curve.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Strawmen are against the forum tenets, you really ought to stop using them.
Give me a functional solution to the problem of "testosterone", then.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The right to due process and its equal application to everyone is the central tenent of the rule of law. Simply dismissing someone without even hearing their claim is illegal.
Nope! That's not how it works. This is not a criminal situation. Sweden should not be required to take migrants, Sweden should be allowed to pick and choose who it makes into citizen as it wants.
If I come into your shop and take a dump on the floor and then you try to kick me out, I can't say, "Hey, I've got a right to fair trial! You might've seen me dump on the floor, but it doesn't count until I've been in the shop for long enough that I can claim squatter's rights!" That's not how it works, Walrus.
Correlation gives significant evidence to check for causation, though. Especially when there's some sort of factor at work that we can observe (in this case, the culture of migrants in regards to women).
Or are you going to say something like, "Well, standing near radiation emitters seems to increase the risk of cancer, but correlation does not imply causation!"?
Walrus, I just find it hilarious that there's no evidence that will ever satisfy you. You do understand that, right? Your cognitive dissonance between what reality is and what you want reality to be is hurting you so much that you constantly increase what amount of evidence is required until nothing is good enough. Nothing would ever be good enough. If I brought out peer-reviewed statistics from a Swedish university that conclusively proved third world immigration increased rape rates you'd say it was wrong for "x" or "y" reason and tell me to get more evidence. No evidence will ever be good enough for you.
Just come right out and admit that you don't actually read what you post, because other than marking the years it's a page from your own source.
Pretty much every single thing you have posted is a lie that you fell for and are repeating as gospel.
In this thread: people who don't know how to use tatistics using numbers to make points that don't exist because other people told them they mean something.
I would say "wake up sheeple", but then somebody would just post that comic.
We wer'nt allowed to do anything, sad to say.
These people are animals.
Your commanders?
A subset of people who live in a country with little to no functional government, never mind the rule of law, in nearly 2 generations is a very bad metric to measure an entire religion against.
My commanders? ok
Right about me(first sargent(E8) was lt. Robert Limeberry.
Then next would be Captain Tom Heartline
THEN we have Major Phil Jordan
And lastly(if you don't mind me not including the mucky mucks who don't do anything in the field) Col. Shawn Carmindy.
And all of the above mentioned men care only how many of the animals we killed. And that also was the mindset of the lats that were in our AO.
Whats weird about soldiers from a "christian" country happily killing muslems?
But here, in the states, everything is done to cover up what these animals do. People have to "smell the coffee" sooner or later, right? Why not smell it before more people die thanks to the "religion of peace"?
A really weird answer, unless you are trying to tell me that the above named individuals made policy.
Also "only how many of the animals we killed" is by far the best way to ensure that a conflict never actually ends, although that is another thread entirely.
bound for glory wrote: Whats weird about soldiers from a "christian" country happily killing muslems?
But here, in the states, everything is done to cover up what these animals do. People have to "smell the coffee" sooner or later, right? Why not smell it before more people die thanks to the "religion of peace"?
Yeah, 'cause regarding people as being less than human has never once caused anything bad to happen.... Wait a minute...
If I come into your shop and take a dump on the floor and then you try to kick me out, I can't say, "Hey, I've got a right to fair trial! You might've seen me dump on the floor, but it doesn't count until I've been in the shop for long enough that I can claim squatter's rights!" That's not how it works, Walrus.
You weren't even willing to wait until the dump had taken place in this example, you're just for throwing people out as they enter the door of your shop.
Correlation gives significant evidence to check for causation, though. Especially when there's some sort of factor at work that we can observe (in this case, the culture of migrants in regards to women).
Or are you going to say something like, "Well, standing near radiation emitters seems to increase the risk of cancer, but correlation does not imply causation!"?
Walrus, I just find it hilarious that there's no evidence that will ever satisfy you. You do understand that, right? Your cognitive dissonance between what reality is and what you want reality to be is hurting you so much that you constantly increase what amount of evidence is required until nothing is good enough. Nothing would ever be good enough. If I brought out peer-reviewed statistics from a Swedish university that conclusively proved third world immigration increased rape rates you'd say it was wrong for "x" or "y" reason and tell me to get more evidence. No evidence will ever be good enough for you.
Here's a quote of me, in this thread, agreeing that North African immigrants have a higher rate of incidence of rape:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: "A poor choice of phrasing"? You were wrong, and now you're trying to backtrack to save face. You're also attributing motive to someone (in this case the Swedish government) without providing evidence of your claim.
Getting a bit desperate there, Almighty. Clinging onto whatever lifeline you can possibly have regarding this. What other reasons could the very left-wing pro-immigration Swedish government have for removing ethnicity from statistics? Do tell.
Now you're claiming that the left-wing government was the one which removed ethnicity from the report, and yet in the 2005 report used by Gatestone to support their claim the fact that immigrants from North Africa and their offspring have a higher incidence of crime actually explicitly says that's the case on page 35. From 2006 to 2014 the government was centre-right, so blaming this percieved shift of yours on the left is clearly not correct.
Any more lies you want to spread while you're at it? Because we're past the point of ignorance and on to concious maliciousness on your part now.
Are you comparing Sweden with two of the biggest shitholes in the world? Really? That is your defence? That is what you are going for?
Your reading comprenension needs work, I was responding to the claim that the Muslim world treats women badly (which is more or less unquestionably correct) by pointing out that it's hardly unique to the Muslim world. As you said, the "shitholes" of the DROC and South Africa are pretty bad, all things considered.
