Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nessus
Why? Assuming I have, I don't recall either way.
You're the one making a positive and fairly extraordinary (read: dumb) claim while I'm just pointing out the fact that race =/= culture so I'm fairly sure I'm right about where the burden of proof lies.
Quote:
In honour of you finding pretty much all the stereotypical fall-backs of the "tolerant" green-lefts, I'ma go with "race is a social construction". How's that?
I'd say that's a D- even if you believe people think black skin and funny eyes are "social constructs". "Race" has always primarily been in reference to biology, even though biological differences between races may be smaller than differences between individuals. In today's discussion, "race" is mostly used in reference to observable and mostly heritable physical features. If you believe that a person's black skin in and of itself justifies treating him as a de facto thug and a gangster then you fail at logic, and that's just the beginning.
Quote:
Hang on just a minute there Hoss, I like your steed but you're riding awful high. I'm saying we have numerical data which displays foreign-born (and yes, thereby from a different culture) as more likely rapists, and you fall back on...Racism? Surely whitey rapes and beats and who knows what else, no one just tells anyone! That's real convincing.
If your axiom of choice is that the "plight" of the negroid, or the hair-palm, is the oppression they feel due to white society structurally discriminating them, then sure, it's perfectly reasonably to just blithely assume that whites rape in record numbers but no one hears about it because racism. Over here in the "idiot-land", or whatever it was you told me my place of residence was, we look at actual factual evidence. Not suspicion based solely on racial discrimination)
And I'm saying 1. that you don't actually have the data you think you have, and 2. that neither the data you have nor the data you imagine having actually say what you want it to say.
The "numerical data" you refer to does not control adequately for demographic characteristics, nor does it control for socioeconomic variables or psychological/psychiatric variables. If you actually have numerical data that does control adequately for such factors, feel free to share the studies. The data you refer to also does not take into account the number of unreported rapes. Are you so blinded by your racism that you have forgotten that most rapes go unreported? The notion that unreported rapes vastly outnumber reported rapes should not be new to you if you've ever done any sober reading on the plight of your gender. The notion that the majority of rapes are perpetrated by acquaintances and people with whom the victim has some sort of established relationship should also not be new to you. The notion that you can't draw the conclusions you want to draw from a severely flawed and limited dataset should also not be new to you. But, on second thought, perhaps it IS news to you that a dataset with very incomplete data may be useless and biased, but, Nessie, you have to remember that you're talking about a heterogenous and imperfect real world here.
Re. your counter-accusation of racism, I don't think that a person's white skin justifies treating him as a likely rapist, even were I to believe that ethnic Finns are more likely to be rapists than foreign-born Finns. Because you're such a racist and devour conspiracy theories, you believe that my claim about most rapes being unreported is founded on prejudices against members of the white Finnish race. In fact I started out from the often-observed realities that most rapes seem to go unreported, that most rapes in the West seem to be committed by acquaintances or people close to the victim, that such closeness between victim and perpetrator seem to make reporting less likely. I tagged on a few remarks about what that's likely to mean about the races of rapists in Finland but anyone with half a brain should be able to see that that was what they call "baiting" which I wanted to flavour with racism so that you could get an idea of how vile it really tastes.
Quote:
Ah, yes, of course! It is the fault of the host society that the bacillus isn't thriving! How silly of me!
A study released this spring categorically demonstrates the fact you quoted. It is not somehow the responsibility of the Finnish tax payer to fund uneducated, racist and misogynistic bucks that the "tolerant" green-left are insistent on importing. Nor is it the responsibility of the tax payer to fund endless government agencies whose sole purpose is to bleat and wring hands about these representatives of a different race and culture, who just haven't had enough help from the public sector.
If you do not speak the local language, do not know what a hammer is (this one is an anecdote, but you set a precedent), and have a "varied conception" of things such as work ethic, the place of women in society, and whether or not it's a-okay to flay some genitals apart, I am not surprised you'd have a hard time finding gainful employment.
You're not surprised because you don't actually know what you're talking about.
If a person with a Muslim name can't even get an interview with the same formal qualifications that'll land a person with a Finnish name a hundred interviews, then, yes, it is the fault of the host society, because a name alone doesn't tell you whether or not a person knows the Finnish word for "hammer". If immigrants are systematically excluded by Finnish society, then, yes, it might actually be your fault if they have a hard time getting into Finnish society. If immigrants are systematically given worse educations in Finland than ethnic and wealthy Finns are, then, yes, it may in fact be the fault of an incompetent state and, in extension, Finnish society.
It is absolutely the responsibility of the Finnish tax-payer to support the integration and the good treatment of every single immigrant you import, as long as you've decided to import them and give them the rights accorded to other human beings and citizens in your country. A legal responsibility, because your laws aren't founded on racism. A pragmatic responsibility, because you don't want your society to turn into a hell-hole. An ethical responsibility, because, well there are so many reasons. If you've decided to import them for real-reals then you have the same responsibilities towards them, as a tax-payer, as you have towards any ethnic Finn that wastes your money through alcoholism, criminality, drunken assault, unemployment, etc. If you believe that bad behaviour justifies exclusion from or abandonment by society, mistreatment etc. then you should feel the same way about ethnic Finns who misbehave.
The fact that your language is kinda retarded is another important matter :o and, on the topic of retarded, do you have any idea how retarded it is for a member of a welfare state to whine about people who feel entitled? :bulb:
Quote:
Who died and made me kommissar of Mohammedans? What difference does it make to anything how many Mohammedans I personally know? One need only look at the societies they've fashioned for themselves, and the sworn statements of their clerics that it is the only acceptable order anywhere in the world, and make the next logical step.
Unless the Finnish police is about to arrest Pakistan, I repeat: Just how many Finnish Muslims do you know that are following the cleric's advice and engaging in welfare-jihad? Just how many Muslim people in Finland do you think actually belong to that particular culture?
What difference does it make? Well, for starters, it might help you wake up to the fact that, just because a person is a Muslim, doesn't mean he agrees with what hate-filled extremists have to say. It is retarded--and typical of the ignorant racist--to conflate culture with race and to believe that extremists speak for everyone all over the world even remotely like them. In reality, a Muslim person, an individual, can actually choose to not engage in Welfare Jihad. Most of them choose not to leech off of the state any more than anyone else does. Do you have proof saying otherwise?
If you still don't get it, let me be the first to treat you henceforth as if you are Dreadnaught.
Quote:
You've got great big brass balls (not intended in any way to refer to your skin colour or culture of choice, which is mostly not your own) to come and cry about "intellectual integrity" after this pile of garbage you managed to vomit out. If there were a gymnasiet writing competition on who managed to be the most heart-string-tugging teenager without rhyme or reason, you'd come right on top. You blatantly fantasize up racist day-dreams when presented with actual hard facts, and that's just the running start. Please.
Look man, I'm just calling a spade a spade and I'm right in my assertions that you're using the terms "culture" and "race" incorrectly, that you're making simple and unacceptable errors of reasoning, and that you failed to critically appraise the data you tried to summon in defense of your silly beliefs. I don't need to tug on any heart-strings; It's easy enough to dispassionately dismantle your delusions.
Quote:
It is hardly an act when you come at me rather viciously and seemingly for little reason. Or with little reason, either. I don't expect you to be polite or "intellectually integrate", but your tone certainly is taking a turn toward the worse.
How do you expect me to treat a delusional racist no better than the likes of Lewk (and possibly worse)? :confused: Shouldn't you be happy to be treated better than you'd treat my brothers? Suck it up and take it like a man.
