What is going on in the UK?

[Manfred Belheim]

In addition to what Senethro and Samson have said, comparing people to something that causes cancer is certainly an interesting thing to say.

Are you of the opinion that criminals aren't a societal ill? Either way, you seem to be of the opinion that more of a bad thing isn't a bad thing so long as the rate of badness remains constant, which is certainly an interesting thing to say.

If the crime rate amongst immigrants is not meaningfully higher than natives, than the argument against immigration on the basis of crime seems unconvincing.

The more I think about this the more insane it seems to be to hold this standard. One should really expect the crime rate amongst immigrants to be significantly lower than the natives, almost negligible in fact. Not because natives are inherently more criminal, but simply because a certain level of crime is seemingly inevitable and they are no-one else's responsibility to deal with. We are obliged to deal with them ourselves. But we have no such obligation to immigrants. We should absolutely be choosing people, and only such people, who are beneficial to the society. At an absolute bare minimum that should mean not actively committing crimes.

Why on Earth would you be setting such a low bar for people you have to actively admit into your nation, such that they only have to achieve completely average levels of behaviour and not exceed average levels of criminality? Why would you not want to be much, much more discerning than that?

 

[Theov]

If the crime rate amongst immigrants is not meaningfully higher than natives, than the argument against immigration on the basis of crime seems unconvincing.

Because they are trying to get into the country - you'd expect them at their BEST behavior. Not average.

Imagine you're illegal in a country, or seeking asylum, or on a visa - supposedly because you're a """"""""""""""refugee""""""""""' and you commit a crime.
You'd expect to be expelled the next day, wouldn't you?
You'd expect you've wasted your chance to say - right?

 

[Senethro]

I'm not sure why you responded to that as if it was a genuine factual claim. I also can't even parse that sentence.

You said something wrong and now you're pretending to just not understand. Pathetic.

 

[Senethro]

Because they are trying to get into the country - you'd expect them at their BEST behavior. Not average.

Imagine you're illegal in a country, or seeking asylum, or on a visa - supposedly because you're a """"""""""""""refugee""""""""""' and you commit a crime.
You'd expect to be expelled the next day, wouldn't you?
You'd expect you've wasted your chance to say - right?

Why do you want this? Have you looked at the proportion of refugees as immigrants for UK? It's tiny.
So what is your goal and motivation for being weird about this?

 

[Samson]

Are you of the opinion that criminals aren't a societal ill?

Everyone has broken the law, and I do not think anyone is a societal ill, everyone is a person.

 

[Senethro]

It's maybe about time that the subject of immigration got News Threaded. These guys are obsessed.

 

[Ordnael]

It's maybe about time that the subject of immigration got News Threaded. These guys are obsessed.

I think that for the first time ever peaceful stable societies are obsessed in openly welcoming opportunnists migrants and fake asylum seekers who have blatant disregard/hate towards our values, our Christian influenced morals and system of rule of law. These folks have been committing heinous crimes against the native people that foot the bill for their stay and when after a decade of being abused "we", finally, raise our voices and political parties are getting the message that enough is enough we are the ones being called obsessed...like we just have to tolerate the raping of our women and children and murder of passerby in silence and keep our warm demeanour towards folks that hate us.

There are very good natured migrants among us that are building/have build a life respecting the societies that welcomed them and contribute to them even beyond the average native...I am sure none of my fellow CFC members decrying the fouls of open borders have anything against these people.
But yeah...we are obsessed, just go ahead and dismiss us that way...reality in parliaments are proving who's wrong and who's right...we don't have to take abuse because of some pan communist ideal of bringing down Western white nations because our forefathers and children are to be blamed for all the woes of the world. I won't take it and I will keep voting accordingly.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Everyone has broken the law, and I do not think anyone is a societal ill, everyone is a person.

I mean okay. This is just a complete blind alley though, so never mind. Yes I drew an analogy between crime and toxins, as things that are both bad for the host (society or person). Deal with it I guess, I don't know. Doesn't seem worth commenting on to me.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You said something wrong and now you're pretending to just not understand. Pathetic.

I didn't say anything wrong, and I don't understand the sentence as it's written as it appears garbled. Sorry pal.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Define "native" without relying on racist tropes

 

[Senethro]

I didn't say anything wrong, and I don't understand the sentence as it's written as it appears garbled. Sorry pal.

You kind of didn't say anything at all due to it being empty snark undercut by flubbing your analogy. Can you please put a little effort in.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

You kind of didn't say anything at all due to it being empty snark undercut by flubbing your analogy. Can you please put a little effort in.

Has nothing to say but he says it anyway

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You kind of didn't say anything at all due to it being empty snark undercut by flubbing your analogy. Can you please put a little effort in.

You appear to be just throwing insults around and not saying anything useful now. The sentence in question...

"If that was true then the argument for giving up smoking did not have massive effects on carcinogen and toxin release rate and therefore mortality, but it does."

Personally, I can't work out what the middle of that sentence is trying to convey. I assume at least one word is wrong, or some words are missing, but from the general structure and the graphs I can only conclude that the general point of the post was "actually, giving up smoking does have health benefits", as if it was understood that I was genuinely making a claim to the contrary. If you interpret it some other way and want to explain then go ahead, but if not there's no point in peacocking around the place and saying nothing.

But also it doesn't really matter at all, because smoking is not actually the point of contention. The analogy is clear, so just reply with something meaningful if you want to.

 

[Samson]

I mean okay. This is just a complete blind alley though, so never mind. Yes I drew an analogy between crime and toxins, as things that are both bad for the host (society or person). Deal with it I guess, I don't know. Doesn't seem worth commenting on to me.

I think classifying people into categories of "criminal" and "innocent" is an underrecognised method of othering. As Jesus said, let he who without sin cast the first stone.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think classifying people into categories of "criminal" and "innocent" is an underrecognised method of othering. As Jesus said, let he who without sin cast the first stone.

It's going to be a bit difficult to have a conversation about crime rates if one is not allowed to refer to the people committing the crimes, or allowed to express any negative opinion about them. But then that's presumably the point of all this type of rhetoric.

 

[Samson]

It's going to be a bit difficult to have a conversation about crime rates if one is not allowed to refer to the people committing the crimes, or allowed to express any negative opinion about them. But then that's presumably the point of all this type of rhetoric.

The point I was objecting to was:

Are you of the opinion that criminals aren't a societal ill?

You were not talking about crime rates as such, you were saying that the people who committed them were "a societal ill". That is a pretty serious way to refer to a group of people that probably includes most if not everyone here as long as you are strict enough with your classification.

 

[Senethro]

It's going to be a bit difficult to have a conversation about crime rates if one is not allowed to refer to the people committing the crimes, or allowed to express any negative opinion about them. But then that's presumably the point of all this type of rhetoric.

Tell that to your friends bemoaning the death of european civilization under the invading barbarians. If the negative opinions had any grounding in reality and weren't just tribal shouting and timewasting, maybe we'd have time for them.

 

[Theov]

Why do you want this? Have you looked at the proportion of refugees as immigrants for UK? It's tiny.
So what is your goal and motivation for being weird about this?

It is like you're completely blind to the changes that have happened in the last 20 years in Europe.
If you think "I don't like it when a beautiful culture rapidly changes into mayhem" is a "weird" stance... then we could have longer discussion that this forum is not suitable for.
But the gist of it is: the Western culture is beautiful and has given the world most of the technology and pieces of welfare we enjoy today. Art, history, science, technology, welfare... it's all there. To see it so rapidly decline is saddening.
There's nothing weird about that.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The point I was objecting to was:

You were not talking about crime rates as such, you were saying that the people who committed them were "a societal ill". That is a pretty serious way to refer to a group of people that probably includes most if not everyone here as long as you are strict enough with your classification.

I feel like this is just quibbling over semantics.I don't think what I was saying was ambiguous.

 

[Samson]

I feel like this is just quibbling over semantics.I don't think what I was saying was ambiguous.

Then where is the line between the sort of criminal everyone is and the sort that is a societal ill?