Jump to content

Thoughts and prayers for Sweden


Sailor Jerry
 Share

Recommended Posts

I did not say all immigrants are crime-prone and even specifically stated here that there are plenty of immigrant groups who are not crime prone. You keep treating me like your imagined opponent and so keep falling into these pitfalls.

 

I've heard of slightly more recent stats (2004 I think) but locating these things can be difficult and I don't want to source articles that don't source. Whatever the case Sweden decided to stop taking such stats and ultimately those who speak very... strongly on these matters are likely correct that the reason for that was to stop providing evidence of the failure that was going on. You can disagree of course, no definite thing out there to explain it but its not a hard thing to logically work out why. Anyway this is why I don't bother to talk with you on the refugees and such. Sweden has purposely covered up stats and when they do that when people say they "cook the books", well the ones they haven't just burnt in the fire anyway, I am inclined to believe them. Of course such a belief isn't a strong case so I don't bother with that. 

 

What I can however bother with is over-representation and some minor support from statistics that Sweden can't erase. I've laid out the scenarios where upon crime could increase in those groups and yet the overall crime rate stay the same or decrease even already. 

 

Of please, spare us this absolute poppycock. You know it, I know it, everybody bloody knows it. Lets tackle those 3 to show how foolish and stupid you are being here and why you keep being made a loser in any of these things because you choose to defend the indefensible. 

 

Rinkeby (its riot in 2010) - Population: 89.1% Immigrant

1: The police and other government services themselves are scared to enter such a place and have to go in numbers. Your excuse #1 implies that normal people, those violent and racist Swedes I suppose, would enter the area and then... target the police? Why not the immigrants?

2: Well you got me there, plenty of white Swedish women mixed in there... wait, no there wasn't. These particular immigrant groups are not very accepting and tolerant you'll find. Even if there happened to be someone damaged enough to join them they would have been rejected. 

3: You still assume I'm some Fox News watching Conservative. Can you even think and then use that thinking to adapt? Anyone who could stop and think would realise long ago that such things do not have any effect on me. Newsflash, when you are integrated you are a lot less likely to be rioting. Its why you can't find any evidence of poor Swedes rioting like the immigrants. Not integrating is very much a reason for these things. That isn't to say its fully their fault, in fact I would happily state that the ultimate blame is with Sweden and its sheer insanity of a policy. 

 

It doesn't of course stop there because below are places hit with riots.

 

Husby: 80% Immigrant 

RosengÃ¥rd: 86% Immigrant

Rinkeby: 89.1% Immigrant

 

I'm sure you could find poor Swedish areas that are like 99% Swede. Where are their riots?

 

Any child could work these things out and yet you profess that you don't know anything about it. Utterly shameful. Have some honesty and courage for once and admit you are wrong. 

 

It doesn't "contribute" to you because you have all those generic responses ready and you can't hit me with any of them, so you have to keep trying to shift things and put words in my mouth so you can then use them. No. I challenged you on that issue and a conversation started between us. The immigrants, with rioting being especially important, is the subject between us. Your constant attempts to shift it all to the refugees and your other talking points you have, all very well rehearsed I'm sure, is the distraction and the so called "Red Herring". 

 

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim Sweden has "cooked the books?" That immigrants did indeed cause a spike in crime? Is there "alternative" statistics you can cite? The burden of proof lies with the claimant. 

 

None of your three points address the logical fallacies. But it doesn't matter, because it is a red herring. That's not my argument, and the fact that you keep wanting me to argue that point makes me think you can't really back up the main argument anymore. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim Sweden has "cooked the books?" That immigrants did indeed cause a spike in crime? Is there "alternative" statistics you can cite? The burden of proof lies with the claimant. 

 

None of your three points address the logical fallacies. But it doesn't matter, because it is a red herring. That's not my argument, and the fact that you keep wanting me to argue that point makes me think you can't really back up the main argument anymore. 

 

Of course such a belief isn't a strong case so I don't bother with that. 

 

I don't have to prove an opinion I don't push for its lack of evidence. In my honest opinion its certainly not impossible based on how they operate on these matters, likely happens yes as cooking statistics isn't the hardest thing in the world. However without evidence it stops there. Its like when America was arming "rebels" while saying that it wasn't. There was no strong evidence of it being the case but its wrong to state an opinion on what you think is likely as long as you do not state it as fact. Eventually it was shown to be the case indeed. 

 

How many times? Seriously? I have told you that there are over-represented. That was it. Spikes, spikes, spikes, is just something you keep bringing up to bait me to give a response that will allow you to enter that zone where you are comfortable and sorry but I'm better than that. I've been telling you that the damage being inflicted has been gradually over time and not all at once post Syria. The riots are a good example to point to of this. The riots were not caused due to Syrian refugees no. Were I saying this you would very easily win such an affair. The issue is the damage was inflicted before Syria which is what I'm actually saying.

 

Where have I at any point argued on refugees spiking crime or whatever other garbage you keep trying to pull me into? I haven't. Our clash here is based upon your comment that the riots, correction... the many riots, occur because of poverty. I challenged you on that and you have done nothing but constantly tried to change the subject to something you're comfortable with. 

 

As for your talk of fallacies you're going into a sort Rahl-Ibrahim remix. First off namedropping fallacies is not an autowin like you seem to think, in fact there is even a fallacy for just a thing. That's the Rahl part of the equation who I saw do it so many times, naturally while doing fallacies himself (like you). The Ibrahim part of it is the sheer silly level of evidence required for such simple matters, and even if provided you will not concede. For example when Ibrahim says no Sunni Muslim would convert to another faith and numerous examples are provided he would state, "Prove they are actually practising Muslims". Any cases a woman? All dismissed if there is an image that doesn't cover their face. In the below even if I found every single immigrant to the man you would pick one, nitpick something, and dismiss everything guaranteed.

 

#1 So there were no reports of outside people entering and rioting (towards the police? Why enter to do that?). Those areas are 80-90% immigrant. The people listed pretty much in all these things are local youths (apparently that is why incidents spike when schools are out based off what is listed on the wiki from an interview with a policeman from memory)... in a 80-90% immigrant area what are the youths going to be? Again, if they found even a single Swede in there they would trust me, let us know about it. 

#2 There are in these cases we can have 100+ rioters (can be less) and I have to prove that every single one of them is a immigrant or I have no case... that is what you are making out. In riots where in some I've seen (I hope not all) the police don't make a single arrest I have to prove they are all immigrants, something completely and utterly impossible.

#3 Were you honest we could have a serious discussion on everything that makes up why they are as they are. I believe it can be summed up as simply a lack of integration while others would perhaps say it is police weakness (http://www.thelocal.se/20170222/a-question-of-education-what-rinkeby-residents-think-about-the-riots), which I believe to be simply a component of the overall issue. On your end you have said poverty is to blame but yet you cannot defend it when asked where the riots of the poor Swedes is.

 

Alright as you so dishonest and you just keep losing so badly I'm going to do you a favour, okay? Lets for the sake of this assume that the rioters in those 3 areas match the population. So 1 in 10 of the rioters is a Swede in Rinkeby for example, something which even you if honest would admit is laughable. Now tell me what has changed in the argument? Absolutely nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim Sweden has "cooked the books?" That immigrants did indeed cause a spike in crime? Is there "alternative" statistics you can cite? The burden of proof lies with the claimant. 

 

Sweden actively suppresses news on immigrant crime. You're so obstinate...

x0H0NxD.jpg?1

 

01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine

01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port
01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you

01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have to prove an opinion I don't push for its lack of evidence. In my honest opinion its certainly not impossible based on how they operate on these matters, likely happens yes as cooking statistics isn't the hardest thing in the world. However without evidence it stops there. Its like when America was arming "rebels" while saying that it wasn't. There was no strong evidence of it being the case but its wrong to state an opinion on what you think is likely as long as you do not state it as fact. Eventually it was shown to be the case indeed. 

 

How many times? Seriously? I have told you that there are over-represented. That was it. Spikes, spikes, spikes, is just something you keep bringing up to bait me to give a response that will allow you to enter that zone where you are comfortable and sorry but I'm better than that. I've been telling you that the damage being inflicted has been gradually over time and not all at once post Syria. The riots are a good example to point to of this. The riots were not caused due to Syrian refugees no. Were I saying this you would very easily win such an affair. The issue is the damage was inflicted before Syria which is what I'm actually saying.

 

Where have I at any point argued on refugees spiking crime or whatever other garbage you keep trying to pull me into? I haven't. Our clash here is based upon your comment that the riots, correction... the many riots, occur because of poverty. I challenged you on that and you have done nothing but constantly tried to change the subject to something you're comfortable with. 

 

As for your talk of fallacies you're going into a sort Rahl-Ibrahim remix. First off namedropping fallacies is not an autowin like you seem to think, in fact there is even a fallacy for just a thing. That's the Rahl part of the equation who I saw do it so many times, naturally while doing fallacies himself (like you). The Ibrahim part of it is the sheer silly level of evidence required for such simple matters, and even if provided you will not concede. For example when Ibrahim says no Sunni Muslim would convert to another faith and numerous examples are provided he would state, "Prove they are actually practising Muslims". Any cases a woman? All dismissed if there is an image that doesn't cover their face. In the below even if I found every single immigrant to the man you would pick one, nitpick something, and dismiss everything guaranteed.

 

#1 So there were no reports of outside people entering and rioting (towards the police? Why enter to do that?). Those areas are 80-90% immigrant. The people listed pretty much in all these things are local youths (apparently that is why incidents spike when schools are out based off what is listed on the wiki from an interview with a policeman from memory)... in a 80-90% immigrant area what are the youths going to be? Again, if they found even a single Swede in there they would trust me, let us know about it. 

#2 There are in these cases we can have 100+ rioters (can be less) and I have to prove that every single one of them is a immigrant or I have no case... that is what you are making out. In riots where in some I've seen (I hope not all) the police don't make a single arrest I have to prove they are all immigrants, something completely and utterly impossible.

#3 Were you honest we could have a serious discussion on everything that makes up why they are as they are. I believe it can be summed up as simply a lack of integration while others would perhaps say it is police weakness (http://www.thelocal.se/20170222/a-question-of-education-what-rinkeby-residents-think-about-the-riots), which I believe to be simply a component of the overall issue. On your end you have said poverty is to blame but yet you cannot defend it when asked where the riots of the poor Swedes is.

 

Alright as you so dishonest and you just keep losing so badly I'm going to do you a favour, okay? Lets for the sake of this assume that the rioters in those 3 areas match the population. So 1 in 10 of the rioters is a Swede in Rinkeby for example, something which even you if honest would admit is laughable. Now tell me what has changed in the argument? Absolutely nothing. 

 

So, you have no evidence and you make your claim entirely based on your "opinion." Ok. I accept your defeat. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No real reason to believe random people on an Internet forum without any evidence of it.

 

Me: In my opinion there is something fishy going on but without evidence its just an opinion so I can't put such a thing forward no. 

You: *Foolishness intensifies*

 

So, you have no evidence and you make your claim entirely based on your "opinion." Ok. I accept your defeat. 

 

Knew you would do that, just so desperate and weak. You can't match up against a single thing I ask you to answer and are so against the wall you will pounce on such a statement to then claim victory to try and escape. 

 

I don't have to prove an opinion I don't push for its lack of evidence. In my honest opinion its certainly not impossible based on how they operate on these matters, likely happens yes as cooking statistics isn't the hardest thing in the world. However without evidence it stops there. Its like when America was arming "rebels" while saying that it wasn't. There was no strong evidence of it being the case but its wrong to state an opinion on what you think is likely as long as you do not state it as fact. Eventually it was shown to be the case indeed.

 

I know well how these things work boy. I knew if I provided you an honest opinion (that I openly state I do not push) that a dishonest and cowardly person like yourself would try to take advantage to get away from addressing the rest. 

 

So the rest of my post again and as I've told you. None of your subpar tricks will work on the Great Roz. Stop running away and admit that you are wrong or at least do as you did in the other thread and simply stop posting. Dishonest and unfair people can never touch the Roz so don't bother if thats how you are going to be.

 

How many times? Seriously? I have told you that there are over-represented. That was it. Spikes, spikes, spikes, is just something you keep bringing up to bait me to give a response that will allow you to enter that zone where you are comfortable and sorry but I'm better than that. I've been telling you that the damage being inflicted has been gradually over time and not all at once post Syria. The riots are a good example to point to of this. The riots were not caused due to Syrian refugees no. Were I saying this you would very easily win such an affair. The issue is the damage was inflicted before Syria which is what I'm actually saying.

 

Where have I at any point argued on refugees spiking crime or whatever other garbage you keep trying to pull me into? I haven't. Our clash here is based upon your comment that the riots, correction... the many riots, occur because of poverty. I challenged you on that and you have done nothing but constantly tried to change the subject to something you're comfortable with. 

 

As for your talk of fallacies you're going into a sort Rahl-Ibrahim remix. First off namedropping fallacies is not an autowin like you seem to think, in fact there is even a fallacy for just a thing. That's the Rahl part of the equation who I saw do it so many times, naturally while doing fallacies himself (like you). The Ibrahim part of it is the sheer silly level of evidence required for such simple matters, and even if provided you will not concede. For example when Ibrahim says no Sunni Muslim would convert to another faith and numerous examples are provided he would state, "Prove they are actually practising Muslims". Any cases a woman? All dismissed if there is an image that doesn't cover their face. In the below even if I found every single immigrant to the man you would pick one, nitpick something, and dismiss everything guaranteed.

 

#1 So there were no reports of outside people entering and rioting (towards the police? Why enter to do that?). Those areas are 80-90% immigrant. The people listed pretty much in all these things are local youths (apparently that is why incidents spike when schools are out based off what is listed on the wiki from an interview with a policeman from memory)... in a 80-90% immigrant area what are the youths going to be? Again, if they found even a single Swede in there they would trust me, let us know about it. 

#2 There are in these cases we can have 100+ rioters (can be less) and I have to prove that every single one of them is a immigrant or I have no case... that is what you are making out. In riots where in some I've seen (I hope not all) the police don't make a single arrest I have to prove they are all immigrants, something completely and utterly impossible.

#3 Were you honest we could have a serious discussion on everything that makes up why they are as they are. I believe it can be summed up as simply a lack of integration while others would perhaps say it is police weakness (http://www.thelocal.se/20170222/a-question-of-education-what-rinkeby-residents-think-about-the-riots), which I believe to be simply a component of the overall issue. On your end you have said poverty is to blame but yet you cannot defend it when asked where the riots of the poor Swedes is.

 

Alright as you so dishonest and you just keep losing so badly I'm going to do you a favour, okay? Lets for the sake of this assume that the rioters in those 3 areas match the population. So 1 in 10 of the rioters is a Swede in Rinkeby for example, something which even you if honest would admit is laughable. Now tell me what has changed in the argument? Absolutely nothing. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me: In my opinion there is something fishy going on but without evidence its just an opinion so I can't put such a thing forward no. 

You: *Foolishness intensifies*

 

 

Knew you would do that, just so desperate and weak. You can't match up against a single thing I ask you to answer and are so against the wall you will pounce on such a statement to then claim victory to try and escape. 

 

 

I know well how these things work boy. I knew if I provided you an honest opinion (that I openly state I do not push) that a dishonest and cowardly person like yourself would try to take advantage to get away from addressing the rest. 

 

So the rest of my post again and as I've told you. None of your subpar tricks will work on the Great Roz. Stop running away and admit that you are wrong or at least do as you did in the other thread and simply stop posting. Dishonest and unfair people can never touch the Roz so don't bother if thats how you are going to be.

 

Well, let's break this down: 

 

Trump says "something happened last night in Sweden," which is blatantly false. 

He then tries to correct himself by saying he saw a segment on Fox News the night before on the issues Sweden has with immigrants. 

Then, two days later, a riot occurs in a predominately immigrant neighborhood, making you believe you were right all along. 

I claimed that the riot itself isn't indicative of a rising trend of violent crime perpetrated by immigrants, and provided evidence saying so. 

You refute that claim, in believing that Sweden taking in immigrants had affected the crime rate. The only evidence you could point to were statistics from before 2000. 

I said you don't have a case by pulling in evidence from way back when (even the article you pulled it from said that). 

And you said that Sweden has "cooked the books" on its crime statistics without anymore than a "honest opinion." 

 

In other words, you cannot defend Trump's words nor your own position that Sweden has somehow fallen into disrepair and crime due to taking in immigrants.

 

I haven't bothered to answer your last few paragraphs because, again, this is a red herring. I have not made that claim. Even if I did, it would detract from the conversation we are having now. And that is, including arrests and charges from ALL of your riots pre-2016, those numbers are included in the crime statistics data which still presents no overall increase in crime. The only part of my argument remotely related to what you want me to debate so desperately is that "immigrants are over-represented in crime, but that correlates more to their socio-economic status than the fact they are immigrants." Of which, you have not presented any evidence refuting. Your fixation on immigrants and riots is silly. You think that by somehow looking at one small slice of crime statistics will prove your point that immigrants have been detrimental to Sweden. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, let's break this down: 

 

Trump says "something happened last night in Sweden," which is blatantly false. 

He then tries to correct himself by saying he saw a segment on Fox News the night before on the issues Sweden has with immigrants. 

Then, two days later, a riot occurs in a predominately immigrant neighborhood, making you believe you were right all along. 

I claimed that the riot itself isn't indicative of a rising trend of violent crime perpetrated by immigrants, and provided evidence saying so. 

You refute that claim, in believing that Sweden taking in immigrants had affected the crime rate. The only evidence you could point to were statistics from before 2000. 

I said you don't have a case by pulling in evidence from way back when (even the article you pulled it from said that). 

And you said that Sweden has "cooked the books" on its crime statistics without anymore than a "honest opinion." 

 

In other words, you cannot defend Trump's words nor your own position that Sweden has somehow fallen into disrepair and crime due to taking in immigrants.

 

I haven't bothered to answer your last few paragraphs because, again, this is a red herring. I have not made that claim. Even if I did, it would detract from the conversation we are having now. And that is, including arrests and charges from ALL of your riots pre-2016, those numbers are included in the crime statistics data which still presents no overall increase in crime. The only part of my argument remotely related to what you want me to debate so desperately is that "immigrants are over-represented in crime, but that correlates more to their socio-economic status than the fact they are immigrants." Of which, you have not presented any evidence refuting. Your fixation on immigrants and riots is silly. You think that by somehow looking at one small slice of crime statistics will prove your point that immigrants have been detrimental to Sweden. 

 

A mess of wrongness.

 

He fluffed his words clearly, that is without doubt. His reference does not reference an incident that happened two days later no, thats something your mind has perhaps twisted you to believe has been stated by me but it hasn't.

 

Evidence? You provided nothing. I challenged you on your excuse of poverty for the riots and provided notable riots on the larger scale and then asked for you to provide the same for Swedes who have the same traits bar the Immigrant one. You have not provided anything and refuse to take it head on and admit that you were simply wrong, instead asking ridiculously for me to prove that every single person rioting in a 90% immigrant area is an immigrant and from the area. Thats all you've done, shouted red herring and refused to engage on the point I engaged you on. I don't care what convo you were having with Wisdomtree or others, ours is a different beast.

 

I have not been arguing on the refugees but immigrants from long before them yes. Stats from 2000s showing just how much of a share of crime they have is very relevant and sadly the only thing that can be provided due to Sweden. The police is noted for making little in the way of arrests for such things and there have been riots they have made 0 arrests. So no, the riots don't get reflected in the arrest stats as you say. 

 

Weak. Who said I was defending Trump's words? I have here stated several times due to your constant nonsense that what I'm talking about is not in regards to the refugees. I have not stated that a incident happened on that day. What I have said is that Sweden would have less crime if it didn't take in those heavily over-represented immigrants (and from that data we can see who are the problem ones are), nor would they have the riots. What evidence do I have on the riots you keep asking of course. Simple. You tried to excuse on poverty so I looked at that. Swedes in poverty are not rioting and even if you lump the middle class and upper class in with them their crime rates are not as bad in regards to crime. The immigrants however, that is a certain kind of immigrant mind as there are plenty of good ones, are over-represented and have caused numerous riots. I've even been holding off on the Grenade Attacks as that would have only sent you off on a even more insane spin. 

 

Also if Sweden did make adjustments in its records, how is that any of your business? They're sovereign and if they want to do that they're perfectly fine doing so.

 

Milton with his usual gems. Yes. If a country wishes to cook the books then thats dandy, it is their right. I mean if say Trump were to cook the books to show immigrants as having caused 99% of crime in the US and then acted based off that... that'd be his right. Who would anyone be to question him. 

 

Just utter lunacy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Milton with his usual gems. Yes. If a country wishes to cook the books then thats dandy, it is their right. I mean if say Trump were to cook the books to show immigrants as having caused 99% of crime in the US and then acted based off that... that'd be his right. Who would anyone be to question him. 

 

Just utter lunacy. 

If it's a problem, it'd be a domestic one, not international. Trump's already lying, I'm not sure why he wouldn't further that with a statement like you provide.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's a problem, it'd be a domestic one, not international. Trump's already lying, I'm not sure why he wouldn't further that with a statement like you provide.

i'm sure you'd be open to the country being ruined in order for you to feel justified by saying he's the boogeyman, never mind you being open to the country being ruined

x0H0NxD.jpg?1

 

01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine

01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port
01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you

01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's a problem, it'd be a domestic one, not international. Trump's already lying, I'm not sure why he wouldn't further that with a statement like you provide.

 

Its a problem now? I thought it was simply perfectly fine?

 

triggered_by_mrlorgin-d9aahmc.png

 

We sense Roz might have steam coming out of areas for this.

 

I'm quite invulnerable you'll find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm sure you'd be open to the country being ruined in order for you to feel justified by saying he's the boogeyman, never mind you being open to the country being ruined

I consider the country already ruined until we get control back and undo all of Trump's actions.

 

Its a problem now? I thought it was simply perfectly fine?

 

 

I'm quite invulnerable you'll find.

I said if, not that it is.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider the country already ruined until we get control back and undo all of Trump's actions.

I've deduced that you want to see this country in ruins.

Edited by fistofdoom

x0H0NxD.jpg?1

 

01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine

01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port
01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you

01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll probably have to read my post before responding for your response to be accurate.

You'll probably have to use your brain to understand my response.

  • Upvote 1

x0H0NxD.jpg?1

 

01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine

01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port
01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you

01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider the country already ruined until we get control back and undo all of Trump's actions.

 

I said if, not that it is.

 

Like ripping up the TPP?

 

So it ain't a problem if he was to do that, alright. Don't think you have much reason to complain whatever he might do then. Trump early on stated he wants to get stories of victim's of illegals broadcasted more which will have the effect of boosting support for actions against illegals, the actual level of their crime being utterly irrelevant. Logically that should be a thumbs up from you so inevitably when some guy makes a thread to "debunk" or whatever you'll set them straight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like ripping up the TPP?

 

So it ain't a problem if he was to do that, alright. Don't think you have much reason to complain whatever he might do then. Trump early on stated he wants to get stories of victim's of illegals broadcasted more which will have the effect of boosting support for actions against illegals, the actual level of their crime being utterly irrelevant. Logically that should be a thumbs up from you so inevitably when some guy makes a thread to "debunk" or whatever you'll set them straight. 

He's adopting Goebbels too? We haven't had an actual propoganda organization since World War II. I don't recall mentioning the TPP or anything else. Except impeaching him.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's adopting Goebbels too? We haven't had an actual propoganda organization since World War II. I don't recall mentioning the TPP or anything else. Except impeaching him.

 

You said and I quote, "I consider the country already ruined until we get control back and undo all of Trump's actions". So undoing the ripping up of TPP and implementing it then?

 

That is naturally what happens when the media downplays it for a long time. When someone counter to them gets in he will want to simply do the action of the other end of the scale. Lesson in that is the media should have been fair and reported such things. Now Trump will be getting it all reported with heavy interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A mess of wrongness.

 

He fluffed his words clearly, that is without doubt. His reference does not reference an incident that happened two days later no, thats something your mind has perhaps twisted you to believe has been stated by me but it hasn't.

 

Evidence? You provided nothing. I challenged you on your excuse of poverty for the riots and provided notable riots on the larger scale and then asked for you to provide the same for Swedes who have the same traits bar the Immigrant one. You have not provided anything and refuse to take it head on and admit that you were simply wrong, instead asking ridiculously for me to prove that every single person rioting in a 90% immigrant area is an immigrant and from the area. Thats all you've done, shouted red herring and refused to engage on the point I engaged you on. I don't care what convo you were having with Wisdomtree or others, ours is a different beast.

 

I have not been arguing on the refugees but immigrants from long before them yes. Stats from 2000s showing just how much of a share of crime they have is very relevant and sadly the only thing that can be provided due to Sweden. The police is noted for making little in the way of arrests for such things and there have been riots they have made 0 arrests. So no, the riots don't get reflected in the arrest stats as you say. 

 

Weak. Who said I was defending Trump's words? I have here stated several times due to your constant nonsense that what I'm talking about is not in regards to the refugees. I have not stated that a incident happened on that day. What I have said is that Sweden would have less crime if it didn't take in those heavily over-represented immigrants (and from that data we can see who are the problem ones are), nor would they have the riots. What evidence do I have on the riots you keep asking of course. Simple. You tried to excuse on poverty so I looked at that. Swedes in poverty are not rioting and even if you lump the middle class and upper class in with them their crime rates are not as bad in regards to crime. The immigrants however, that is a certain kind of immigrant mind as there are plenty of good ones, are over-represented and have caused numerous riots. I've even been holding off on the Grenade Attacks as that would have only sent you off on a even more insane spin. 

 

Fluffed is a terrible euphemism for lying. I like how you are so easy on Trump, but if Obama/Hillary said something like that, you would call them liars. 

 

Lol, so desperate to draw attention away from the fact you can't prove Sweden's immigrants have contribute to a rise in crime. Why don't you engage me on that? The actual topic I'm talking about. You can't prove it, can you? "Oh, Sweden is crooked!" Ah huh, sure. Did you hear that from the national inquirer? I also heard that Ted Cruz's dad helped kill JFK. 

 

Sweden would have less crime in general or per capita? Because Sweden would have less crime in general if you removed 5 million people regardless of whether or not they are immigrants or Swedes. If you are talking about per capita, the stats still disagree. Unless you have evidence? Present your case. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fluffed is a terrible euphemism for lying. I like how you are so easy on Trump, but if Obama/Hillary said something like that, you would call them liars. 

 

Lol, so desperate to draw attention away from the fact you can't prove Sweden's immigrants have contribute to a rise in crime. Why don't you engage me on that? The actual topic I'm talking about. You can't prove it, can you? "Oh, Sweden is crooked!" Ah huh, sure. Did you hear that from the national inquirer? I also heard that Ted Cruz's dad helped kill JFK. 

 

Sweden would have less crime in general or per capita? Because Sweden would have less crime in general if you removed 5 million people regardless of whether or not they are immigrants or Swedes. If you are talking about per capita, the stats still disagree. Unless you have evidence? Present your case. 

 

Obama fluffed when he said they were arming/training terrorists. He made the mistake of telling the truth on that. See. No double standard at all. Closest thing Clinton had was her "we will raise taxes on the middle class" thing which I'll happily admit I heard it as that instead of what they then said she did. I deemed it pretty silly for her to say such a thing so wrote it off as a mistake and didn't push it on here.  

 

Thats not what we're dealing with. You want me to prove a responsibility for a spike around the entering of the refugees. I have told you it has been gradual.

 

Look, I'm not going to bother going to go put statistics for every European nation on here especially when you've proven you are as you are. Long story short crime since the 90s across Europe has fallen which includes Sweden. However Sweden has fell less than other similar nations and the immigrants (the gradual ones) are often cited as the reason why. I believe this to be the case with the statistics before the censoring of the relevant statistic showing such a story. Now could I fetch such statistics for the 2010 onward? Well no, you know full well that Sweden has put a stop to that which is awfully suspicious (this is the part I agree on with the people who talk of massive spikes) as why would they do such a thing if not for it being bad for their policy? 

Now naturally in your rush to scream fallacy you commit your own by citing evidence not existing as evidence that your position is correct as you have deemed it the default position that is right until proven wrong. However were I to play your game of dishonesty here then I could say that going by the old stats we do have that my position is the default, and that it is you who has to show evidence that the stats have changed since then. You can't of course do such a thing. So what is it? We can't truly know due to Sweden's efforts and so there is no default here.

 

As such you will agree that Sweden's embargo on the publishing of such important statistics should be put to an end. If nothing is wrong then the stats should be taken and published without issue, and that having such information out there would allow us to work out the truth much easier. Lets settle on that and end this here. Yeah?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said and I quote, "I consider the country already ruined until we get control back and undo all of Trump's actions". So undoing the ripping up of TPP and implementing it then? No,literally everything Trump does is bad. Just almost all the time.

 

That is naturally what happens when the media downplays it for a long time. When someone counter to them gets in he will want to simply do the action of the other end of the scale. Lesson in that is the media should have been fair and reported such things. Now Trump will be getting it all reported with heavy interest. I think we should look at which part removed the requirement of ensuring equal representation of all POVs.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama fluffed when he said they were arming/training terrorists. He made the mistake of telling the truth on that. See. No double standard at all. Closest thing Clinton had was her "we will raise taxes on the middle class" thing which I'll happily admit I heard it as that instead of what they then said she did. I deemed it pretty silly for her to say such a thing so wrote it off as a mistake and didn't push it on here.  

 

Thats not what we're dealing with. You want me to prove a responsibility for a spike around the entering of the refugees. I have told you it has been gradual.

 

Look, I'm not going to bother going to go put statistics for every European nation on here especially when you've proven you are as you are. Long story short crime since the 90s across Europe has fallen which includes Sweden. However Sweden has fell less than other similar nations and the immigrants (the gradual ones) are often cited as the reason why. I believe this to be the case with the statistics before the censoring of the relevant statistic showing such a story. Now could I fetch such statistics for the 2010 onward? Well no, you know full well that Sweden has put a stop to that which is awfully suspicious (this is the part I agree on with the people who talk of massive spikes) as why would they do such a thing if not for it being bad for their policy? 

Now naturally in your rush to scream fallacy you commit your own by citing evidence not existing as evidence that your position is correct as you have deemed it the default position that is right until proven wrong. However were I to play your game of dishonesty here then I could say that going by the old stats we do have that my position is the default, and that it is you who has to show evidence that the stats have changed since then. You can't of course do such a thing. So what is it? We can't truly know due to Sweden's efforts and so there is no default here.

 

As such you will agree that Sweden's embargo on the publishing of such important statistics should be put to an end. If nothing is wrong then the stats should be taken and published without issue, and that having such information out there would allow us to work out the truth much easier. Lets settle on that and end this here. Yeah?

 

Ah, ok. So "fluffed" is your euphemism for lying. Trump lied. 

 

And I've told you that you don't have any evidence for that either. If it were gradual, as you have said, the crime rate should have been steadily growing. Instead, it has been flat for at least the last 10 years, if not longer. 

 

No, I don't know fully well that Sweden has put an end to statistics gathering in 2010, because in the last link I gave you, 2010 was still on that board. This is bullshit. 

 

Again, you have no evidence for this. You don't even have a good reason, other than you think Sweden would "cook the books" to support their policies. Do you have evidence that Sweden has done this in the past? That could be grounds for potential suspicion. Do you have any leaked sources from the Swedish government that says "Sweden is cooking the books?" That could be grounds for potential suspicion. What isn't grounds for suspicion is you having a conclusion about Sweden and its crime, and upon being unable to find evidence for that conclusion, you claim Sweden has rigged its statistics. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.