What's wrong with Britain: London murder rate overtakes New York's - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14902377
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Are knife crimes in London disproportionately committed by ethnic minorities in comparison to the ethnic British population of the United Kingdom...yes or no?


You have gone from this is down to" Islamic militants", to "Muslims" to "ethnic minorities" in general. :lol:

Well, religion isn't the same as race, but setting aside that, I really don't understand this sentence because of its grammatical structure. So are you saying i'm a racist because I argued that by simple statistical analysis a policy of profiling based of proportion to criminal contribution would be rational?


You are arguing that nationals of different ethnic/religious groups should have different rights than others. This is the textbook definition of racism and it is quite hilarious that it would bother you. If it bothers you and makes you feel ashamed of yourself perhaps you should not argue such things.

Well, I don't think its only Islamic immigrants, that would be unfair to the black community in London which also commits a disproportionate amount of crime to their numbers as % of all Brits. Likewise, I never specifically said that it was returning ISIS fighters who were the ones doing all the knifing....That would be absurd.


You are absurd. Your contribution in here has gone from obvious trolling to pretending that your trolling can actually be serious too.

If you wanted to address what my satire was arguing for, if it could be called an argument at all, it would be merely in agreeing with another poster on this same thread who jokingly said that Britain should next move to ban knives and naughty thoughts.


For some reason you have an expectation that you should be permitted to turn this thread into a screeching anti-Muslim hysteria that supposedly the British State is actively aiding and abetting. But since you have been told that such are the shitty ramblings of trolls like noir who command zero respect in this community, instead of letting go and moving on you are doubling-down and trying to give them an air of seriousness in the process digging yourself further into the pit of crap.

Thus, the argument that would've been made by me would be this: the UK has a problem with enforcing stupid laws (like censoring social media) instead of dealing with actual problems (such as Islamic immigrants with Jihadist sympathies). I also implied in my satire that the people that would end up suffering from a ban on knives, would be law abiding anglo-saxon protesant brits more so than blacks and muslims, and for the same reason this would be so in the United States with a gun ban. Those who commit crimes rarely possess their weapon legally and rarely care if that was a crime anyway.


Earlier, you said the problem(the rise of criminality) is British Muslims(has there an equivalent rise of British Muslims?) you even argued that citizenship laws should change to restrict Muslims from becoming citizens, now you say Islamic immigrants, then you add the Blacks, then you use "ethnic-minorities". All in all, you will say anything to make a connection with outgroups you hate even though this rise in crime has not been attributed to anything you suggest and nor have you even attempted to connect any statistics to explain this rise in crime. Yet you believe that screeching 'Muslims' loud enough makes something on-topic, just because people should consider it "common sense". :lol: Laughable.

Once again, I think you are being bit emotional about all this. I make some satire, then you get butt-hurt about it and try to make it into a debate over something I never specifically argued for.


Listen mate, if I were "butthurt" of anything I could make it vanish in a heartbeat, don't hold it against me that I am holding you to a higher standard than others, it's not cool.
#14902386
@noemon,

Dude, you started this shit-fest by getting all butt-hurt over some satire I posted in response to someone else's satire. YOU made it into a bigger deal than it really was to goad me to a debate over.....who knows.

You also seems disposed to lecture me on my style of debating when you have intentionally put words into my mouth SEVERAL times....I repeat again, I never said that the British government wants or embraces terrorism on its own shores. I wasn't. Period. Full-Stop.

noemon wrote:You are arguing that nationals of different ethnic/religious groups should have different rights than others. This is the textbook definition of racism and it is quite hilarious that it would be bother you. If it bothers you and makes you feel ashamed of yourself perhaps you should not argue such things.


If that is the most rational thing to do, then I have no shame at all in it.

In fact, let me repeat my position. If you are part of a group that commits a disproportionate amount of crime, you should be targeted by law enforcement in proportion to your contribution to the crime rate. Period. Full-Stop.

noemon wrote:You are absurd. Your contribution in here has gone from obvious trolling to pretending that your trolling can actually be serious too.


Sure. Whatever.

noemon wrote:that supposedly the British State is actively aiding and abetting.


I have never said this, or alleged this.

I have only alleged that these groups commit a disproportionate amount of these crimes, which is entirely true and that the British government has it priorities wrong if it is focusing on white canadian youtubers being "offensive" and not addressing this very real issue. Anyone with even the slightest bit of common sense knows this is the case as well.

noemon wrote: instead of letting go and moving on you are doubling-down and trying to give them an air of seriousness in the process digging yourself further into the pit of crap.


Of course I am doubling down, the facts are in Bud, a disproportinate amount of London's crime is committed by muslims and blacks.

I am right, you are wrong. Quit making this about your fee-fees and me being troll. I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, but its just the way it is.

noemon wrote:Before you said the problem is British Muslims you even argued that citizenship laws should change to restrict Muslims from becoming citizens, now you say Islamic immigrants, then you add the Blacks, then you use "ethnic-minorities". All in all, you will say anything to make a connection with outgroups you hate even though this rise in crime has not been attributed to anything you suggest. Yet you believe that screeching 'Muslims' loud enough makes something on-topic, just because people should consider it "common sense". Laughable.


Well, like I said, (way back in an earlier post that you also clearly ignored) the Problem is the social contract, a nation should be defined not by citizenship to a state within a certain geographic context, but by ethno-cultural and religious heritage. If this was how Britain had continued to define its "citizens," we wouldn't be having this conversation....because these criminals would be almost non-existent.

Whether you like it or not, A Japan with 100% black citizens is not Japanese, A Greece with 100% Turkish Muslims is no longer Greek, and that same truth applies to Britain.

You may be confused about this, but I sure as hell am not and I don't really care if you think that is "sinister." :lol:
#14902403
Victoribus Spolia wrote:@noemon,

Dude, you started this shit-fest by getting all butt-hurt over some satire I posted in response to someone else's satire. YOU made it into a bigger deal than it really was to goad me to a debate over.....who knows.

You also seems disposed to lecture me on my style of debating when you have intentionally put words into my mouth SEVERAL times....I repeat again, I never said that the British government wants or embraces terrorism on its own shores. I wasn't. Period. Full-Stop.


It is quite ridiculous watching you squealing of being a victim just because you were told this: viewtopic.php?f=51&t=173216&start=20#p14902167

Are you serious? :eh: My "provocation", my "shit-fest". Get a backbone, you are not a victim here. You screeched some non-sense about Muslims and the British state allegedly aiding and abetting ISIS militants and you were only told that this is beneath the on-topic forum. Because it's true.

If that is the most rational thing to do, then I have no shame at all in it.

In fact, let me repeat my position. If you are part of a group that commits a disproportionate amount of crime, you should be targeted by law enforcement in proportion to your contribution to the crime rate. Period. Full-Stop.


I expect from men to stand behind their words, and your words involved the argument that nationality and citizenship laws must change to exclude people of different ethnic-backgrounds. That is the definition of racism and you do the same thing in this very post as well. At least stand by your words and do not try to hide behind vine-leaves.

I have only alleged that these groups commit a disproportionate amount of these crimes, which is entirely true and that the British government has it priorities wrong if it is focusing on white canadian youtubers being "offensive" and not addressing this very real issue. Anyone with even the slightest bit of common sense knows this is the case as well.


Anyone with the slightest bit of common sense would try to figure out why there has been a rise in crime in the UK, anyone who wishes to blames Muslims would have the basic decency to say: "look Muslims rose by this much, crime rose by this much, it appears that there might be a correlation" But you have done none of that, you are simply screeching Muslims like a hysterical troll while at the same time pretending that anyone else is butthurt except for you for failing to provide a concise argument. You should get it through your head that unless you make a connection of the rise in crime with the rise in something else, your screeching is nothing more than off-topic nonsense and the only reason it is being permitted is because this is way too obvious to pass while giving you reason to pose as a censored victim. You are neither censored nor a victim of any kind. It is absolutely within my rights both as a poster and as an admin to request basic on-topic arguments in on-topic forums. That is not "provoking" you, that is the least expectation in here.

You may be confused about this, but I sure as hell am not and I don't really care if you think that is "sinister." :lol:


No that is not sinister at all, what is sinister is attributing a rise in crime to Muslims without any data to support your argument and then blaming the state for not having citizenship laws based on ethnic-identity. What you implied and keep implying is that "crime will keep on rising unless we prevent Muslims from becoming citizens". :knife:
#14902412
noemon wrote:I expect from men to stand behind their words, and your words involved the argument that nationality and citizenship laws must change to exclude people of different ethnic-backgrounds.


Correct and I reiterated that later in my last post when I discussed the nature of nationality.

So, I have stood by my words.

noemon wrote:Anyone with the slightest bit of common sense would try to figure out why there has been a rise in crime in the UK, anyone who wishes to blames Muslims would have the basic decency to say: "look Muslims rose by this much, crime rose by this much, it appears that there might be a correlation" But you have done none of that,


Actually, that is exactly what I argued. :eh:

I argued and supported with evidence that a disproportionate amount of crime was committed by the groups in question.

What more do you want?

If you consider anything other than a concession to be screeching, I suppose this conversation is doomed from going anywhere.

noemon wrote:It is absolutely within my rights both as a poster and as an admin to request basic on-topic arguments in on-topic forums. That is not "provoking" you, that is the least expectation in here.


Yes, and i said I would respect any decision you made regarding a move of the conversation if you felt what had been said was indeed off-topic :eh:

noemon wrote:What you implied and keep implying is that "crime will keep on rising unless we prevent Muslims from becoming citizens".


Well, that and keeping the ones already in the country if you want to get technical.

A UK without Muslims will be a UK with less crime, how is that statistically inaccurate? Please show me.

Perhaps multiculturalism and not guns or knives, or social media, or racism, is the real problem here.

Why can't that be part of the discussion? That is all I am advancing.

People are old enough to remember in the UK and US where there was a mono-culture with guns and free speech but still very little crime....so what changed?

Well, demographics has certainly changed, and that needs to be part of the conversation.

I don't think that is a radical proposition.
#14902429
Victoribus Spolia wrote:
Actually, that is exactly what I argued. :eh:

I argued and supported with evidence that a disproportionate amount of crime was committed by the groups in question.

What more do you want?

If you consider anything other than a concession to be screeching, I suppose this conversation is doomed from going anywhere.


You have not provided any kind of argument that the rise in crimes has been down to for example a rise in the Muslim population(has there been such a rise in the population to begin with?). Using stats from 2010 that ethnic-minorities commit more crimes than white British nationals does not in any way mean that the rise in knife-attacks in 2017 is because of Muslims. What does that even mean? I have not ever asked you to concede to anything. I have asked you numerous times to articulate a logically coherent statement. The rise in knife-attacks in London is because so and so. For example the Home Office took this action which basically permitted criminal gangs to operate with less hindrance. One such argument is provided by the BBC that I quoted by providing evidence that the stop and search operation were reduced which permitted more leeway to gang-members to carrying knives. Saying its because 'Muslims' in not an argument at all.

A UK without Muslims will be a UK with less crime, how is that statistically inaccurate? Please show me.


I don't know about Muslims but a UK without chavs would definitely be a UK with less crime. If you want to go full on, a UK without people would have the best amount of crime.
#14902602
noemon wrote:Using stats from 2010 that ethnic-minorities commit more crimes than white British nationals does not in any way mean that the rise in knife-attacks in 2017 is because of Muslims.


I used much more recent statistics in my second source which covered both ethnic minorities and Muslims. So this is false.

noemon wrote:One such argument is provided by the BBC that I quoted by providing evidence that the stop and search operation were reduced which permitted more leeway to gang-members to carrying knives.


To be quite honest, I don't think this is much of an argument either and I would argue that the demographic question is far more relevant to tackling the actual root cause of the issues.

Here is why:

1. You have argued, using that which was provided by the BBC, the case that the reducing of the "stop and search" operation has resulted in these higher rates of knife-crime.

1-Critique Part A: Making this argument is akin to saying that the cause of your headaches is that you stopped taking Aspirin. Not taking Aspirin is not what causes headaches, Aspirin covers symptoms of the underlying causes, its an alleviation. You will never solve the problem behind Crime unless you discover its actual cause.

1-Critique Part B: In the United States (I am sure you remember), Trump argued during the campaign for President that New York's "Stop and Frisk" policy should have been re-instituted in high-crime neighborhoods and especially applied in places like Chicago (where crime is out of control). This policy is basically the same as London's "Stop and Search," now Trump was derided for this suggestion because he said the program should target high-crime areas, he was derided because the approach was considered racial profiling (which is exactly what I was arguing when I said law enforcement should focus on demographics in proportion to their criminal contribution)....you ironically also called this racist.

My critique of your argument, is the same as I would make against Trump. If you are to the point in a society where you need to implement something as intrusive as a "stop and search" policy and that such is controversial because in order for it to be effective it would have to focus on certain high-crime areas that tend to have a certain demographic make-up....than the real problem is not really being addressed.

Like I said, taking Aspirin does not cure headaches if they have an underlying cause, they just suppress symptoms.

The real question is this, why does crime go up with less police presence? If the culture was well, loosening police presence would not result in chaos because people would be civil.

This is definitely true in mono-cultures like Japan. If you leave your smartphone in a cafe bench-seat, you could go back the next day and get it.....no one would have stole it. You can't do that in an East London bar now could you? Even gun-crime in the U.S. follows the same pattern, for instance, Gun ownership is some of the highest per capita in rural areas and they have some of the lowest rates of gun-crimes....why is that you think? Same reason as is the case in Japan, they are mono-cultures.

Yes, if you eliminate intrusive policing in the inner city of places like London and New York, you will see more crime, but the lack of the police is not the cause of crime anymore than the lack of morphine is the cause of pain in your broken leg.

The broken bone is the cause of pain in your broken leg, because something is in fact broken.

The cause of crime in cities and nations that didn't have these crime rates to this extent and in these places 100 years ago, is also because something is broken.

The statistics show that certain demographics are exhibiting criminal tendencies. I am not saying this a genetic racial tendency, it could be because of welfare dependency, it could be a host of other things, but the fact that demographics is relevant to this issue is obvious.

noemon wrote:If you want to go full on, a UK without people would have the best amount of crime.


Yeah, but the thing is, These trouble demographics, overall, did not originate and hail from the UK, they are not ethnic Brits. The Brits have a unique claim to these lands and their criminal contribution is fairly proportional to their population contribution. This is not true of these foreigners.

What is the root-cause of these crimes? Perhaps its impossible to know for 100%, but those who commit these crimes are statistically far more likely to be an ethno-religious minority and welfare recipient. That is a fact.

This is where the conversation will have to go if real solutions to crime, and not merely covering symptoms, is to obtain.
#14902609
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I used much more recent statistics in my second source which covered both ethnic minorities and Muslims. So this is false.


The only Muslim related statistic you have offered was that Muslims made up 15% of inmates in prisons during the period 2001-2012. But this does not in any way explain why there has been a rise in knife-attacks.

To be quite honest, I don't think this is much of an argument either and I would argue that the demographic question is far more relevant to tackling the actual root cause of the issues.

Here is why:

....symptoms of the underlying causes, its an alleviation. You will never solve the problem behind Crime unless you discover its actual cause.


you ironically also called this racist.


I did not call 'stop search operations' 'racist', but I did call and will still call your argument in favour of excising citizenship from Muslims as racist because it is. Here you are trying to find the most 'political correct' ways to basically call for the removal of Muslims from society as a whole while at the same whining that discriminating people based on their ethno-religious identity should not be termed "racist".
#14902612
Perhaps it's time to start the London chapter of the Bloods, Crypts, MS 13, sorenos, nortenos, Latin Kings, etc. etc.

Side note, in the US, even in Los Angeles, gang violence and gang participation has decreased significantly from their peak in the 90s. Adding to my argument, that despite all the mass shootings, and the general bashing people like to do about the US being a dangerous warzone. It's actually a much safer place today than 10 - 20 - 30- 40 years ago.
Last edited by Rancid on 03 Apr 2018 15:11, edited 1 time in total.
#14902614
noemon wrote:But this does not in any way explain why there has been a rise in knife-attacks.


Well, if you want to be that specific no one is going to have a choice but to resort to speculation regarding this issue, because under that criteria we are only talking about a specific surge for a specific month, I don't know that there is enough statistical reporting on demographics that would even apply on a month-to-month basis as much of these analysis follow the annual census or similar time-frames.

That criterion is far too narrow.

noemon wrote:I did not call 'stop search operations' 'racist', but I did call and will still call your argument in favour of excising citizenship from Muslims as racist because it is.


Actually, you also referred to my suggestion of focusing law enforcement on demographics in proportion to their criminal contribution as racist.

But, I also don't see how disagreeing with a social contract definition of citizenship automatically makes one a racist bigot either, that is a sincere disagreement on how a citizen ought to be defined and has little to do with one's opinion of a racial group in-and-of itself.

But, since everything is considered racist these days, I suppose I should find such titles as par-for-the-course for anyone holding an unapproved opinion.

noemon wrote:Here you are trying to find the most 'political correct' ways to basically call for the removal of Muslims from society as a whole.


I have been called many things in my life, but politically correct is not one of them. :lol:

That is a first. I like to think that I am applying needed nuance and analysis to a difficult and controversial issue. I wouldn't call that being politically correct. Though unlike the shitposters for the right here on PoFo, I think shouting things like "get rid of dem der mooslems!" is counterproductive and lacks the appropriate and necessary qualifiers.

Call it what you will.
#14902616
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Well, if you want to be that specific no one is going to have a choice but to resort to speculation regarding this issue


This did not prevent you from speculating that "Muslims" are responsible for the increase in knife-attacks and calling for the removal of their citizenship. At least you admit that shouting Muslims is merely your speculation and not anything based on "evidence" as you previously claimed.

Actually, you also referred to my suggestion of focusing law enforcement on demographics in proportion to their criminal contribution as racist.


Actually I did not, quote me on it.

But, I also don't see how disagreeing with a social contract definition of citizenship automatically makes one a racist bigot either, that is a sincere disagreement on how a citizen ought to be defined and has little to do with one's opinion of a racial group in-and-of itself.

But, since everything is considered racist these days, I suppose I should find such titles as par-for-the-course for anyone holding an unapproved opinion.


You are calling for Muslim nationals to have their citizenship rescinded with the view of removing Muslims from society as a whole. Why are you whining for being called a racist when that is the very definition of racism? :eh: What is the proper term to call a policy that seeks to discriminate people based on their ethnic-identity?
#14902617
It's all about poverty, policing and police funding. Neo-liberals are in power and all they do it cut and cut all public services so what do expect. Glasgow had one of the worst murder rates in western Europe before the SNP and Scottish police fixed things. You can't blame that on "blacks" and immigrants. :lol:
guardian wrote:How Scotland reduced knife deaths among young people
Treating knife crime as a health issue has led to a dramatic drop in stabbings: of the 35 deaths of young people in Britain this year, none were in Scotland


In 2005, Strathclyde police set up a violence reduction unit (VRU) in an effort to address a problem that had made Glasgow, in particular, notorious. Later that year, a United Nations report illustrated why that strategy was so urgent.

The study concluded that Scotland was the most violent country in the developed world. Based on telephone interviews with crime victims conducted between 1991 and 2000, it found that excluding murder, Scots were almost three times as likely to be assaulted as Americans and 30 times more likely than the Japanese.

The VRU, which is directly funded by the Scottish government and has an arms-length relationship with Police Scotland, was later rolled out across Scotland. It has adopted a public health approach to knife crime, in which the police work with those in the health, education and social work sectors to address the problem. The results so far have been dramatic.

Of the 35 children and teenagers who have been killed with knives in Britain so far this year, not one has been in Scotland. By contrast, in England and Wales, 2017 for deaths of young people by knives in nearly a decade, according to figures revealed by the Guardian’s Beyond the blade project, which aims to show the true picture of knife deaths among children and teenagers in the UK.

Between April 2006 and April 2011, 40 children and teenagers were killed in homicides involving a knife in Scotland; between 2011 and 2016, that figure fell to just eight. The decline has been most precipitous in Glasgow, which once had one of the highest murder rates in western Europe. Between 2006 and 2011, 15 children and teenagers were killed with knives in Scotland’s largest city; between April 2011 and April 2016, none were.
#14902618
Rancid wrote:Perhaps it's time to start the London chapter of the Bloods, Crypts, MS 13, sorenos, nortenos, Latin Kings, etc. etc.

Side note, in the US, even in Los Angeles Gang violence and gang participation has decreased significantly from their peak in the 90s. Adding ot my argument, that despite all the mass shootings, and the general bashing people like ot do about the US. It's actually a much safer place today than 10 - 20 - 30- 40 years ago.


According to the quick research I did on the internet, the London murders are also mostly gang related.

It certainly seems that US cities have been able to reduce gang violence significantly in the last few decades, with New York City and LA being two good examples. I remember when NYC was actually dangerous, not like now.

It would be interesting to see an analysis of the London situation by some of the people who were responsible for the decrease in gang activity in the US. More interesting than the simplistic “ebil blacks and Mooslems!” argument.
#14902621
Again, we have people conflating race with culture. They did not attack people because of their color, but because of their culture. Religion may be a strong part of the culture, but it is not all of it. You can not simply transplant people into a different culture and expect them to automatically adhere to new cultural standards. It is not racist to be extremely cautious about immigration, it is common sense. Racism is being used to refuse to accept we have differences and some are not compatible. You either have a rational plan for incorporating immigrants into your culture or you suffer the inevitable violence of not insisting upon assimilation.
#14902626
One Degree wrote:Again, we have people conflating race with culture. They did not attack people because of their color, but because of their culture. Religion may be a strong part of the culture, but it is not all of it. You can not simply transplant people into a different culture and expect them to automatically adhere to new cultural standards. It is not racist to be extremely cautious about immigration, it is common sense. Racism is being used to refuse to accept we have differences and some are not compatible. You either have a rational plan for incorporating immigrants into your culture or you suffer the inevitable violence of not insisting upon assimilation.


Calling for Muslims to be banned from being citizens is the definition of racism. Defending such policies by trying ridiculously to obfuscate the issue is even more sinister racism even more so when it is completely off-topic.

Therefore, racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to a United Nations convention on racial discrimination, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination. The UN convention further concludes that superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and there is no justification for racial discrimination, anywhere, in theory or in practice.[3]


Removing people's rights based on their ethnic-identity is the definition of racism. VS explicitly calling for a society without Muslims is the textbook definition of racism. And it is even more so when he has not even made any attempt to connect the rise in London crime with Muslims. All we have here is:

"I believe Muslims are responsible for the rise in London crime. I don't have any data for my speculation but I believe that we should remove Muslims from society as a whole. PS: I am not racist and please don't call me racist, cause Muslims are not a race"

:lol:
#14902629
noemon wrote:Calling for Muslims to be banned from being citizens is the definition of racism. Defending such policies by trying ridiculously to obfuscate the issue is even more sinister racism.



Removing people rights based on their ethnic-identity is the definition of racism.


I disagree. Protecting cultural standards is an option people are free to choose regardless of what anyone else decides. This is why people of different nations insist upon making their own decisions. These nations are free to choose whether they want immigration at a level that can be assimilated or whether they want immigration at a level that requires compromise of their own cultural standards. Whether or not You choose to call it racism, it is a cultural choice protected by the very definition of democracy.
Your argument is based upon the idea allowing an immigrant gives acceptance to the cultural standards they bring with them. This is a very new and distorted view of immigration.
#14902636
You are ridiculously trying to pretend that VS is calling for more tight measures in immigration when in fact he is explicitly calling for a Muslim-free society. At first you claimed that this is not racism because Muslims are not a race, realising that the definition of racism includes any kind of ethnic & cultural based discrimination you are now trying to pretend that all you want is immigration up the point of assimilation.

Let me reiterate: calling for a Muslim free society and for Muslims to have their citizenship removed just because they are Muslims is racism and it is the kind of racism that is both illegal in the countries we reside but also illegal as per the forum rules.
#14902653
noemon wrote:You are calling for Muslim nationals to have their citizenship rescinded with the view of removing Muslims from society as a whole. Why are you whining for being called a racist when that is the very definition of racism?


I don't recall any "whining" though I will say that "labeling" in that manner is counterproductive. I am saying that we shouldn't define those who are ethnically brits as British citizens at all. The social contract's multicultural implications are the root cause of these problems, that is what I am arguing.

noemon wrote:Actually I did not, quote me on it.


Sure.

noemon wrote: (What I Wrote, That You Quoted): So are you saying i'm a racist because I argued that by simple statistical analysis a policy of profiling based of proportion to criminal contribution would be rational?

(Your Response To That Quote): You are arguing that nationals of different ethnic/religious groups should have different rights than others. This is the textbook definition of racism and it is quite hilarious that it would bother you. If it bothers you and makes you feel ashamed of yourself perhaps you should not argue such things.


If you were not referring to my advancing the policy of proportional enforcement based on demographics, then you should not have made this response to that point.

noemon wrote:This did not prevent you from speculating that "Muslims" are responsible for the increase in knife-attacks and calling for the removal of their citizenship. At least you admit that shouting Muslims is merely your speculation and not anything based on "evidence" as you previously claimed.


I only admitted that if you insist on narrowing the scope of acceptable criteria to only those immediate circumstances pertaining to a single month's crime-rate fluctuation, that you are narrowing the scope too much to allow for anything but speculation.

In fact, one month is not even enough to time to prove that your own posited theory of reducing "stop-and-search" as the answer, that could only be confirmed after a prolong study involving multiple months and even years.

The problem is not the evidence I am giving, but the evidence which are allowing for in the conversation. You are limiting the scope of what is relevant to the point of making almost everything irrelevant. :eh:
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 03 Apr 2018 16:54, edited 1 time in total.
#14902659
Pants-of-dog wrote:According to the quick research I did on the internet, the London murders are also mostly gang related.

It certainly seems that US cities have been able to reduce gang violence significantly in the last few decades, with New York City and LA being two good examples. I remember when NYC was actually dangerous, not like now.

It would be interesting to see an analysis of the London situation by some of the people who were responsible for the decrease in gang activity in the US. More interesting than the simplistic “ebil blacks and Mooslems!” argument.


They don't need to, they have Glasgow. That was gang related also, and not blacks or Muslims, it was all white. The common denominator between London and Glasgow isn't race or religion, it's poverty.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/22/met-police-chief-cressida-dickto-visit-scotland-for-ideas-to-reduce-knife
Met police chief to visit Scotland for ideas to reduce knife crime
Cressida Dick will travel to Glasgow to hear how stabbings were dramatically reduced

The VRU was set up in 2005 to tackle Glasgow’s deeply rooted blade culture that had barely moved on since the Gorbals gangland was immortalised in the 1935 novel No Mean City. Since then all knife crime rates have been incrementally reduced. Assaults involving knives had fallen by a third by 2012 and there was a 69% drop in recorded incidents of people carrying knives by 2016, according to Police Scotland figures.

#14902661
noemon wrote:calling for a Muslim free society and for Muslims to have their citizenship removed just because they are Muslims is racism and it is the kind of racism that is both illegal in the countries we reside but also illegal as per the forum rules.


I don't think I am really saying that, when I said that the crime rate would be lower in the UK if there were no Muslims, I was just pointing to a statistical fact, not advising for a policy of mass deportation.

My position on a "muslim-free" society is about political theory itself, and less about realistic political solutions. I don't know that there is any. :hmm:

My point is, that if you believe, for instance, that the country should be ruled under an Eastern Orthodox theocracy, the criteria for citizenship would be different and would likely preclude Muslims. Is that racism? I don't think so, that seems to be a legit question regarding the forms of government and their criteria of what defines a citizen.

Under that scenario, would the country have more or less crime? That is an interesting question and that is what I am entertaining.

If a communist regime bans Christians is that racist? No, not when you consider their reasons (which are still wrong).

In the context of my points on here, my argument has been this:

Multiculturalism, as permitted and caused by the definitions of citizenship originating in the social contract, is a contributor to the sort of issues we are seeing in the OP. Thus, if I were to argue for a definition of citizen that would preclude these sort of issues, it would be the more historic ethno-cultural definition. That is all.

Keep in mind, this is all very hypothetical. I am an Anarcho-Capitalist after all, so I don't even believe in governments and government policies anyway. :D
#14902664
Pants-of-dog wrote:
According to the quick research I did on the internet, the London murders are also mostly gang related.

It certainly seems that US cities have been able to reduce gang violence significantly in the last few decades, with New York City and LA being two good examples. I remember when NYC was actually dangerous, not like now.

It would be interesting to see an analysis of the London situation by some of the people who were responsible for the decrease in gang activity in the US. More interesting than the simplistic “ebil blacks and Mooslems!” argument.


Victoribus Spolia wrote:
I don't think I am really saying that, when I said that the crime rate would be lower in the UK if there were no Muslims, I was just pointing to a statistical fact, not advising for a policy of mass deportation.

My position on a "muslim-free" society is about political theory itself, and less about realistic political solutions. I don't know that there is any. :hmm:

My point is, that if you believe, for instance, that the country should be ruled under an Eastern Orthodox theocracy, the criteria for citizenship would be different and would likely preclude Muslims. Is that racism? I don't think so, that seems to be a legit question regarding the forms of government and their criteria of what defines a citizen.

Under that scenario, would the country have more or less crime? That is an interesting question and that is what I am entertaining.

If a communist regime bans Christians is that racist? No, not when you consider their reasons (which are still wrong).

In the context of my points on here, my argument has been this:

Multiculturalism, as permitted and caused by the definitions of citizenship originating in the social contract, is a contributor to the sort of issues we are seeing in the OP. Thus, if I were to argue for a definition of citizen that would preclude these sort of issues, it would be the more historic ethno-cultural definition. That is all.

Keep in mind, this is all very hypothetical. I am an Anarcho-Capitalist after all, so I don't even believe in governments and government policies anyway. :D


Question for you. Do you think the US has a multiculturalism problem?

I hope an effective treatment is found somewhere […]

Are we seriously surprised that a country that we[…]

To be fair, sending scientists to work on a farm […]

Cousin to chaos

@Wulfschilde I think Covid is overblown but no […]