Discussion » Nonsense » Alex and Dando, up a tree...

  • Paul Gadd
    Paul Gadd wrote:

    Eight Pakistani men living in the UK were arrested recently for raping children.

    alt text

    Most politicians were quick to claim that this had nothing to do with Pakistani culture.

    But now a Muslim politician of Pakistani origin has come forward saying "There is a small minority of Pakistani men who believe that white girls are fair game,"

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/18/warsi-pakistani-men-white-girls-are-fair-game

    alt text

    "This small minority who see women as second class citizens, and white women probably as third class citizens, are to be spoken out against," she said.

  • Christoffer Tuner

    Hi Pete. I thought you said you weren't surprised he was British.

    But it seems I must have been mistaken.

  • Christoffer Tuner

    Hi Shasha. So you think this woman was wrong to make these comments?

  • Christoffer Tuner

    Hi Pete,

    So you think the newspaper was wrong to publish the comments of this top politician? And that to spread the idea that British men make likely rapists is worthwhile?

  • Christoffer Tuner

    Hi Shasha,

    I'm sorry you've had such a terrible experience with men. What places are you going to meet such terrible men? I can assure you that most men are perfectly capable of having a healthy relationship with women - most men do marry, after all!

  • №❶ Passioη

    They don't look like Catholic priests to me

  • Christoffer Tuner

    Hi Shasha,

    So why is it wrong for me to put her comments on this site where they will be read by a few dozen but not wrong for her to make them where they will be read by hundreds of thousands?

    Also you're willing to stereotype a "huge amount of human males of every colour, provenience and religion " as thinking that women are "third class and just to fuck"

    It really surprises me that you've met so many terrible men from all over the world. I guess you must travel a lot and be very physically attractive. But don't you think it's wrong to stereotype men in this way just because you've had bad experiences?

  • Christoffer Tuner

    Hi Rockstar,

    It's difficult not to look at each man and weigh up how much of a child molester they look like.

    I agree that the last man almost looks safe enough to let your kids play with.

    Two and five, not so much.

  • №❶ Passioη

    it's a diversion...

    **

    British Man Rapes Chinese Girl On the Streets of Beijing

    **

    That's the hot topic. Has Nothing to do with Ve Pakistanis

  • Christoffer Tuner

    Hi No. 1,

    Now that's just fake news and I don't think you should be posting that without making very clear that's it's just a joke!

  • Christoffer Tuner

    Hi Shasha,

    You said "a huge amount of human males ..." think that "women are third class and just to fuck"

    But then why would the majority of men marry? Even in very religious countries it's perfectly possible to have sex outside of wedlock.

    "without the actual article - you put only the link" Ok, I'll post the whole article now, if that makes it better.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Posting in a troll thread.

    Vaz's remarks were echoed by Marai Larasi, co-chair of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, who told the Guardian last week: "An excessive focus on some cases of sexual exploitation with a primary focus on ethnicity rather than the exploitation itself is misleading and fuels racist attitudes which ultimately won't help women and girls."

    This.

  • Christoffer Tuner

    Here is the whole article, so as not to confuse non-native speakers.


    A small number of men of Pakistani heritage believe "white girls are fair game" for sexual abuse, the Conservative co-chair Sayeeda Warsi said on Friday.

    In remarks which place her at odds with the Labour MP Keith Vaz and some women's groups, Lady Warsi made clear she believed race lay at the heart of the recent sexual abuse case in Rochdale.

    "There is a small minority of Pakistani men who believe that white girls are fair game," Warsi told the London Evening Standard after the jailing of nine men for their part in a child sexual exploitation gang. "We have to be prepared to say that. You can only start solving a problem if you acknowledge it first."

    Warsi, who is Britain's first Muslim to have a full cabinet seat, spoke out after the nine men from Rochdale were jailed for a total of 77 years at Liverpool crown court last week for sexually abusing young girls. The victims, the youngest of whom was 13 when the abuse began, were passed around the group of men for sex after being plied with food, alcohol and drugs.

    Vaz, the former Europe minister who is now chairman of the commons home affairs select committee, said he did not believe the crimes were a "race issue".

    But Warsi, who was prompted to speak out after her father condemned the abuse as "stomach-churningly sick", took a different view in her Evening Standard interview. "This small minority who see women as second class citizens, and white women probably as third class citizens, are to be spoken out against," she said.

    The Tory co-chair also made clear that Muslim leaders needed to condemn the men's behaviour. "These were grown men, some of them religious teachers, or running businesses, with young families of their own. They knew this was wrong. Whether or not these girls were easy prey, they knew it was wrong.

    "In mosque after mosque after mosque, this should be raised as an issue so that anybody who is remotely involved should start to feel that the community is turning on them. Communities have a responsibility to stand up and say: 'This is wrong, this will not be tolerated'."

    The intervention by Warsi puts her at odds with some women's groups in addition to Vaz. Speaking on the day the men were sentenced, Vaz said: "It's quite wrong to stigmatise a whole community."

    Vaz's remarks were echoed by Marai Larasi, co-chair of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, who told the Guardian last week: "An excessive focus on some cases of sexual exploitation with a primary focus on ethnicity rather than the exploitation itself is misleading and fuels racist attitudes which ultimately won't help women and girls."

    Warsi said she spoke out after her father Safdar, who arrived in Britain from Pakistan in 1960 with £2 in his pocket, told her to speak out. Over dinner shortly after the men were sentenced, Warsi's father asked her what the government was going to do.

    The Tory co-chair recalled in her interview: "Dad then said: 'Well, what are you doing about it?' I said: 'Oh, it's not me, it's a Home Office issue'."

    Warsi's father called on his daughter to do better. "He said to me: 'Sayeeda, what is the point in being in a position of leadership if you don't lead on issues that are so fundamental? This is so stomach churningly sick that you should have been out there condemning it as loudly as you could. Uniquely, you are in a position to show leadership on this.' I thought to myself, he's absolutely right'."

    Warsi, who praised the British Muslim Forum and the Muslim Council of Britain for a "fantastic" response in the wake of the sentencing, said the authorities should not allow cultural sensitivities to prevent investigations involving minority ethnic communities. "Cultural sensitivity should never be a bar to applying the law," she said.

    If the authorities failed to act in an "open and front-footed" way it would "create a gap for extremists to fill, a gap where hate can be peddled".

    This contrasted with Vaz, who warned that the criminal justice system should not "dance to the tune of the British National party."

    Warsi has recently faced criticism from Conservative MPs who believe that she is one of the cabinet's weak links. But Warsi shored up her position last week with a strong performance in front of the Conservative 1922 committee.

  • Christoffer Tuner

    Hi Dando,

    That would be the most obvious argument against Sayeeda Warsi's comments.

    However, her key rebuttal is:

    "You can only start solving a problem if you acknowledge it first."

    Do you think that ignoring the fact that street trafficking in the north of England is overwhelmingly controlled Pakistani and Afghan men is the best course of action?

    Racist attitudes might not help women and girls but a full understanding of the crime and its perpetrators surely will.

  • Christoffer Tuner

    Continuing my last post....

    As an example, I agree that tax payer money should be spent on self defense classes for young women attending school because the majority of rapes are committed by men against women. That stereotypes a gender, sure, and possibly promotes sexism but I still believe the benefits outweigh the negatives.

    And Pete would probably chime in that this kind of education is most necessary in Britain.

  • Christoffer Tuner

    Hi Shasha,

    "Dando found for you the most important part of this article, which also explains why it's bad to have this post here."

    No it doesn't. It says that Warsi's comments are "misleading" but without saying why they are misleading.

    Then it says that racism doesn't help women. But nobody is saying that racism helps women! That's called a "strawman"

  • Christoffer Tuner

    Hi Pete,

    You seem confused. It was a high level politician who said "You can only start solving a problem if you acknowledge it first." Not me. The quote marks are there to show you that these were her words. I make no claims to be in a position to solve the problem.

  • Christoffer Tuner

    Hi Witch,

    Gadd is a common surname in my country. I am not the artist known by the stage name "Gary Glitter" though it's possible that I am related to him. Hopefully not, as I don't like his music or his style of clothing.

  • Christoffer Tuner

    Hi Witch,

    You are right that fish and chip shops are part of traditional life in the UK. However, they are not intended as meeting places for child molesters. In my youth, I myself would often eat at a fish and chip shop run by a lovely couple called Mr and Mrs Bacon – neither of whom ever molested me. I can only agree with your point that this is an issue of betrayal of trust. You enter a fish and chip shop purely to buy fish and chips – not to have your children molested.

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    ah BBC, you sure are a shit paper.

  • Christoffer Tuner

    Hi Pete,

    I realise that you don't like this post. All I can say is "you can't win them all" and suggest you start a thread on a topic you are more interested in - such as why British men are so likely to commit rape.

  • Christoffer Tuner

    Hi 摸名,

    I don't believe the BBC is a paper.

  • Christoffer Tuner

    Hi 马克,

    I'm sorry, but I don't understand your English. It seems you have used many of the wrong words.

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    Hahahahaha ... where is mudi?

  • Christoffer Tuner

    Hi Sunny,

    You are right. Asian men are more likely to molest children.

  • pommie
    pommie wrote:

    Moody is probably busy trying to pass a brick through his anos.

  • pommie
    pommie wrote:

    Or on a flight to the UK...

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    (continued) ... hahahaha ... Pomy, dont get the comment about going to UK ... by the way, is it "UK" or "the UK"? I still have trouble whether to use the "the" in front, e.g. "the US" ... heehee ...

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:

    Pakistani men living in the UK raping kids....British boys killing and torturing little kids (example Murder of James Bulger ) ... Ufff! It is pretty tough being a child in the UK

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:

    While in jail in 2001 he married his second wife, Fatema Saira Rehman, a Bangladeshi-born divorcée who inspired him to convert to Islam and take the name of Charles Ali Ahmed.

    I like love stories... :P

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    Oops, clearly I can't read.

    Did they change that article, or did you twist it a bit? I read the full article as saying there's a crazy lady who pins these rapes on culture or race instead of on men being generally disgusting. I read your summary as saying that a Muslim admits there's something disgusting about Muslims specifically.

    Aww, Gadd's a chinchilla... who can get mad at a chinchilla?

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    OP:

    Do you think that ignoring the fact that street trafficking in the north of England is overwhelmingly controlled Pakistani and Afghan men is the best course of action?

    LOL, the PC brigade chaired by lefty first or second generation immigrants from wherever would have you do just this, if they could.

    Racist attitudes might not help women and girls but a full understanding of the crime and its perpetrators surely will.

    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!! The elephant in the room does not exist!!!

    You must engage in double think: yes, you know that the majority of street trafficking in the north of England is overwhelmingly controlled by Pakistani and Afghan men but you can not at any point acknowledge this fact in the subsequent course of action you take to solve the problem because that would be "racist" (making you the boogyman, the pariah, the outcast, the antisocialite, dare I say..a terrorist of sorts!!!)


    Imagine the scenario: Lions are roaming wild on england's green and pleasant land, there are also wolves and bears. There are also hunters that exist to kill the lions, wolves and bears for the purpose of protecting children, preventing them from being gobbled up. Lets say, lions are responsible for the majority of small children gobbled up by these three types of animal each year.

    Would it be logical for the english government to put out a decree to hunters saying you are not allowed for focus on killing lions anymore, because that is unfair. yes, out intelligence tells us that lions are responsible for more children gobbled up than wolves or bears, but due to our recent flirtation with lion law we have decided that it would be "animalist" to focus only on killing lions, you have been warned.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Most sexual crimes against white British women are committed by white British men.

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    "Most sexual crimes against white British women are committed by white British men." Dandy, you're a smart guy. Do you really need the concentration of mentally deficient people that is the internet to realize your intellectual superiority? WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU STILL HERE? Please do something with your life. Love, mom.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    Most sexual crimes against white British women are committed by white British men.

    Subject at hand is "Street trafficking in the North of England"

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Most sexual crimes against white British women are committed by white British men.

    Subject at hand is "Street trafficking in the North of England"

    Problem?

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    Problem?

    Nope, just kindly reminding you of the subject at hand.

    To clarify my position on the matter, it is that this is:

    A social phenomenon not linked directly to race, dna or any genetic heritage, though perhaps linked to 'community'.

    A social phenomenon still worth noting, discussing and addressing in terms of which 'community' group the offenders are part of.

    Linked to "culture"? I couldn't possibly comment, as I have no expertise in the area, however, the lady pictured above has done this, and is a politician and local leader, and a baroness and a cabinet member.

    I do not think she would bother making statements like these unless she considered them important public knowledge. Please bare in mind that she is also both Pakistani and Muslim.

  • pommie
    pommie wrote:

    …em gniracs era sboom s’ynnuS

    :(

  • pommie
    pommie wrote:

    Ixnay on the oobsmay.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    To clarify my position on the matter, I will proceed to obfuscate the dialogue with conveniently undefined categories and an appeal to authority.

    That's nice. What I said requires substantially less clarification.

    Nope, just kindly reminding you of the subject at hand.

    And I'm just kindly reminding you that the overwhelming majority of sexual crimes are committed within one's own community. Therefore the greatest threat to white women is not Afghan/Pakistani/Muslim men, but white men.

    That should inform policy, methinks.

    Can you think of any reasons why it shouldn't?

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:

    Disturbingly....Yesterday in Spain, TV news networks reported a similar case in Barcelona, focused on the keywords -Pakistani men-Rape-Underage Child-

    How much does mass media suck? Watch The Wire's Final Season

  • pommie
    pommie wrote:

    17 años 是 una menor? O_o

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    Can you think of any reasons why it shouldn't?

    No.

    Can you think of any reason why the fact this gang are all pakistani and muslim should be avoided or skirted around in public discussion? According to Warsi, this fact is of great significance. That is all.

    Therefore the greatest threat to white women is not Afghan/Pakistani/Muslim men

    Why is this now suddenly about "white" women? Non-whites were also victim to this gang. It is not about "brown on white" rape, it is about a gang who purpetrated many acts of molestation and rape. Warsi merely noted that white girls may be viewed as even less worthy of respect (mercy?) than non-white girls.

    This has nothing to do with anglo-saxon racism or a concept of "they are raping our white english women"; it everything to do with identifying a group which poses a threat to women, especially young women, and subsequently, thanks to brave Baroness Warsi, a trend.

    Why this should not inform policy I do not know. Perhaps you can tell me?

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    This has nothing to do with anglo-saxon racism or a concept of "they are raping our white english women"; it everything to do with identifying a group which poses a threat to women, especially young women, and subsequently, thanks to brave Baroness Warsi, a trend.

    Uhm, I can identify that group. It's rapists. And if the percentage of the Pakistani population who are rapists is higher than the percentage of the general population who are rapists, then I'm going to guess that there might be some statistically relevant factors to consider before making the assertion that the rapiness is related to race.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Can you think of any reason why the fact this gang are all pakistani and muslim should be avoided or skirted around in public discussion?

    I think it was already given more than due emphasis in the headline, thus necessitating corrective reminders that most sexual exploitation takes place within one's own ethnic group, lest we forget and give undue law enforcement priority to the pursuit of specific ethnic groups in response to highly sensationalized crimes.

    Speaking of forgetfulness:

    Therefore the greatest threat to white women is not Afghan/Pakistani/Muslim men

    Why is this now suddenly about "white" women?

    Suddenly?

    rt:

    Muslim admits Pakistani men like to rape white children

    linked article headline:

    Top Tory Warsi claims 'white girls are fair game' to some Pakistani men

    linked article deck:

    Conservative party co-chairman says race played role in recent sexual abuse case in Rochdale

    Why is this suddenly about the maintenance of your non-racistness?

    it everything to do with identifying a group which poses a threat to women, especially young women,

    You mean heterosexual men?

    and subsequently, thanks to brave Baroness Warsi, a trend.

    Pandering to the racial apprehensions of conservatives is not 'brave.'

    Baroness Warsi says #Muslimsrapingwhitewomen is trending.

    Why this should not inform policy I do not know. Perhaps you can tell me?

    Politicians should not inform policy. Facts should.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    You mean heterosexual men?

    No, I mean organized, interconnected GANGS which plan, and carried out attacks on young girls. There was cohesive support among this gang for one another, they were organized and had somewhat of a hierarchy.

    This is about gang violence. I cant believe you would try to assert that individual offenders are more of a danger to society than organized gangs which plan attacks, alibis and have members that cover for each other. Your idea seems to be to try to create a catch all net for "white rapists" as these represent the highest number by volume dissipated throughout a country. You would completely ignore concentrated pockets of crime perpetrated by gangs for some noodle limp reason like "they dont represent a statistically high enough percentage of rape victims to concentrate on, and beardy weirdy cares about the people as a WHOLE, not just groups" ; well, that is probably just because you are afraid of being tarred and feathered (labeled racist).

    Pandering to the racial apprehensions of conservatives

    Or just telling the truth, which is of course in todays day and age, a crime against humanity... lol

    is not 'brave.'

    It is, especially when even lil snow white douche troll gnomes like yourself are going to pathetically bleat things like "shes pandering to her white masters" ...lol; and I hardly think your demographic is the kind of backlash hardest against comments like that - so yes, 'brave' is apt and right and correct, as usual.

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    You mean heterosexual men?

    Dando, why the stereotyping? You should know better than that. Don't you know that rape is a crime of power, not sex? Therefore, homosexual men should be just as likely to rape women as heterosexual men are.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    [Warsi] Pandering to the racial apprehensions of conservatives is not 'brave.'

    It is [brave], especially when

    setup for a non sequitur

    even lil snow white douche troll gnomes like yourself

    ad hominem

    are going to pathetically bleat things like "shes pandering to her white masters"

    humorless misquote

    ...lol; and

    Laughing your own "joke."

    I hardly think

    Truest words you've ever spoken.

    your demographic

    Taking things personally, eh? BTW, you probably mean psychographic.

    is the kind of [sic] backlash hardest against comments like that - so yes, 'brave' is apt and right and correct, as usual.

    Because 29-year-old nominally heterosexual white American males have so much influence over the political future of the British Conservative Party's token Muslim homophobe.

    No, I mean organized, interconnected GANGS which plan, and carried out attacks on young girls. There was cohesive support among this gang for one another, they were organized and had somewhat of a hierarchy.

    Replace gang with clergy, family, school, or company.

    This is about gang violence. I cant believe you would try to assert that individual offenders are more of a danger to society

    I'm glad you can't believe that, because I never said that; that's a strawman fallacy. The culture of rape is more of a danger to society than this one gang.

    than organized gangs

    Hold the fuck on. I thought we were talking about one gang. Where are these other ones coming from? Your imagination? Do not non-Muslims also participate in gang violence?

    which plan attacks, alibis and have members that cover for each other.

    Rape isn't very complicated and does not require group planning to carry out. It is typically premeditated and carried out by individuals, except for when racists are trying to invoke the spectre of gang rape to validate their ethnoreligious prejudices.

    Normalization, victim blaming, and providing false alibis are indeed group efforts. These behaviors are a part of rape culture, to which British Muslims contribute only nominally compared to the white British men. You may wish to make the case that they contribute proportionately more than we ought to expect from their smaller numbers, but you have clearly failed to do that, because U MAD.

    Even if you could, I would respond that when you control for differences in socioeconomic status, whatever meager correlation you are presuming will shrink or disappear, and Muslim men will be shown to commit rape at the same rate as white cohorts of comparable backgrounds. Do I have numbers to back this up? No. But I don't need them, because the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, even if he's too much of an intellectual coward to do anything more than make racist implications based on scant anecdotal evidence.

    Sexual exploitation within one's ethnic group is more common than exploitation of another ethnic group. Unless we're talking about sex tourism. Hey. To what ethnoreligious group do those guys typically belong?

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    your latest response contains hardly anything of any substance. the first half is just incoherent butthurt fluff and the second contains only

    You may wish to make the case that they contribute proportionately more than we ought to expect from their smaller numbers, but you have clearly failed to do that, because U MAD.

    failed? more like havnt bothered, because although true, since we we all know it is true, it firstly isnt worth even mentioning, and is akin to asking for a tarring and feathering.

    when you control for differences in socioeconomic status

    so now, being poor and lower class is an excuse for rape, in your eyes?

    and Muslim men will be shown to commit rape at the same rate as white cohorts of comparable backgrounds

    pure conjecture.

    Do I have numbers to back this up? No. But I don't need them

    this is your standard debating MO. it wont take you far in life.

    To what ethnoreligious group do those guys typically belong?

    Oh so its the ones that can afford to go on holiday to thailand now? One minute its poor oppressed underclasses doing all the raping, next its comparatively well moneyed tourists...

    As usual, you're chatting shit, dando.

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, even if he's too much of an intellectual coward to do anything more than make racist implications based on scant anecdotal evidence.

    Are you sure? What if the assertion is an affirmative defense?

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    You may wish to make the case that [Muslims] contribute proportionately more than we ought to expect from their smaller numbers, but you have clearly failed to do that, because U MAD.

    (note: when I say we, I mean everybody!)

    failed? more like havnt bothered, because although true, since we we [sic] all know it is true,

    Not so fast. Who's "we we"?

    it firstly isnt worth even mentioning,

    Then why is it worth mentioning, repeatedly, that in this singular and very specific instance of sexual exploitation, the perpetrators were all of a particular ethnic group?

    and is akin to asking for a tarring and feathering.

    Argumentum ad baculum.

    and Muslim men will be shown to commit rape at the same rate as white cohorts of comparable backgrounds

    pure conjecture.

    Indeed! The purest sort, as it is a null hypothesis of the often causal relationship presumed by blatant racists and liberal racists alike.

    Alex's completely unsubstantiated assumption--that Muslim men exploit white women at a different, higher rate than white cohorts of comparable backgrounds--is the most impure sort of conjecture, as it is contaminated with blatant ethnoreligious prejudice.

    Such mental laxity is a fitting explanation for why one would read this:

    Even if you could [prove Muslims contribute proportionately more than we ought to expect from their smaller numbers], I would respond that when you control for differences in socioeconomic status, whatever meager correlation you are presuming will shrink or disappear, and Muslim men will be shown to commit rape at the same rate as white cohorts of comparable backgrounds

    And infer this:

    being poor and lower class is an excuse for rape

    Rather, what one should infer is that your implied relationship between ethnoreligious identity and exploitation of women is a mere correlation, and the social phenomenon you obliquely refer to is in fact caused by a third variable that is linked to social inequality--a politically inconvenient conclusion for Conservatives.

    But let's be generous and assume that the correlation merely shrinks rather than disappearing completely. So even though you're too lazy to prove it and too much of a coward to say it, let's give you and the OP the benefit of the doubt and allow that British Muslim men exploit white women at a proportionally higher rate than their small population might suggest, even when you control for socioeconomic status (so as to compare poor Muslims to poor whites.

    What are you going to do about it, whitey?

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    Not so fast. Who's "we we"?

    Well, Warsi for a start, as well as anyone else in the north of england with their eyes and ears open.

    Then why is it worth mentioning, repeatedly, that in this singular instance of sexual exploitation, the perpetrators were all of a particular ethnic group?

    Because the thread of discussion is on the subject of this groups detainment, their views of women in general and the fact that Warsi's comments on the matter suggest that their ethnicity and beliefs are directly linked to their behavior, in this case, and that this is not an isolated phenomenon. I truly believe that if Warsi believed that this was a "one off" incident or "statistically irrelevant", she would not have commented on it so publicly; this is what you seem to fail to grasp.

    I will be sure to contact her and insist that from now on she prefaces all of her remarks with caveats reminding all that most rape is committed by people within the same ethnic groups, circles of friends, families etc. in order to placate poison gnomes half way around the world.

    I would respond that when you control for differences in socioeconomic status, whatever meager correlation you are presuming will shrink or disappear, and Muslim men will be shown to commit rape at the same rate as white cohorts of comparable backgrounds

    You are saying that, among those with "comparable backgrounds" all men are equally likely to rape. I'm saying, "that is bullshit, dando". I am also pointing out that Warsi disagrees with you - saying that among certain groups of muslim men, there is a greater likelihood for them to perpetrate abuses of a sexual nature against females, (in particular white females) because they are seen respectively as second and third class citizens. That is to say, they do not offer them the same respect to these women as we (note when I say "we" I mean everybody except for people that fall into this kind of group and others like it) do.

    So even though you're too lazy to prove it and too much of a coward to say it, let's give you and the OP the benefit of the doubt and allow that British Muslim men exploit white women at a proportionally higher rate than their small population might suggest, even after you control for socioeconomic status. What are you going to do about it, whitey?

    Put your tar and feathers away, oh comic and parodoxical excuse for a self righteous guilt ridden apologist. Firstly, it is not "British Muslim Men", it is British Muslim Men of a certain type; UNFORTUNATELY that "type" is not as rare as I wish.

    Secondly, what I will do is, note the threat, spread the word, raise awareness etc.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    You may wish to make the case that [Muslims] contribute proportionately more than we ought to expect from their smaller numbers, but you have clearly failed to do that, because U MAD.

    failed? more like havnt bothered, because although true, since [Warsi ... as well as anyone else in the north of england with their eyes and ears open] all know it is true, it firstly isnt worth even mentioning, and is akin to asking for a tarring and feathering.

    In other words, you have not even considered the null hypothesis. Sounds like prejudice to me.

    when you control for differences in socioeconomic status, whatever meager correlation you are presuming will shrink or disappear, and Muslim men will be shown to commit rape at the same rate as white cohorts of comparable backgrounds

    You are saying that, among those with "comparable backgrounds" all are equally likely to rape.

    Nope. I'm saying that ethnoreligious identity is only one of a myriad of other factors, including socioeconomic status (which just happens to have a stronger relationship with criminality than does ethnoreligious identity), that you have made a conscious decision to ignore because you are preoccupied with the dreadful imaginings of dark brown uncircumcised phalli violating the soft pink orifices of innocent preteen white girls which the British Conservative Party's token homophobic Muslim Baroness says is now a trend.

    Note the threat, spread the word, raise awareness etc.

    So, your work here is done?

    alt text

    (Non-native English speakers should take note that in this context, "etc" is short for "ethnic cleansing.")

    it is not "British Muslim Men". It is British Muslim Men of a certain type

    Which begs the question: how do you discriminate between rape-prone British Muslim men and not-rape-prone British Muslim men? Because if an armchair sociologist cannot do so even on a theoretical level, a cop certainly cannot carry it out in practice. The heightened scrutiny of an ethnoreligious group will just distract people from the hard truth that women are more often preyed upon by men of their own ethnic group than by others.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Why are you obfuscating the issue with race, Dando?

    rt

    The issue here is culture which, in this case, is one that is highly secretive, protects its own at all costs, knows no loyalty or sense of duty to its host nation and is heavily influenced by the religion to which these men adhere.

    Catholics?

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    I just looked upstairs and noticed that I made a markdown fail; instead of posting a link to the wikipedia article on null hypotheses, I posted a broken image with the URL of same. Anyhoo, it bears repeating that OP, Alex, and Eduardo reject the null hypothesis out of hand and presume that Muslims rape children more than non-Muslims.

    That said, it's not a race issue and to play the race card is disingenuous.

    What's disingenuous is implying I had, when the card was already face up on the table long before I had arrived.

    Pluck whatever quotes you want out of the Bible in order to make Christians look bad but you are intellectually dishonest to argue a) that Christianity approaches anywhere near the levels of fascism and bigotry that permeate Islam

    Why bother? Ctrl+f reveals this as the first mention of the Bible, Christianity, fascism, or bigotry in this thread, so not only does this constitute a strawman fallacy (and point b, a no true Scotsman fallacy), it is also blatantly racist. There are no discrete "levels" of fascism or bigotry by which two utterly nebulous ethnoreligious entities might be compared, besides those one might arbitrarily assign in the process of rationalization of existent prejudice.

    ...

    But I suppose that some cultures are just better than others. The best cultures have proscriptive norms against ethnoreligious prejudice, mixing cannabis with tobacco, and rape, which, by the way, is far easier to get away with when one is better integrated into the social environment. Therefore white-on-white sexual exploitation is not only unquestionably more frequent than non-white-Muslim-on-white sexual exploitation, it's also more insidious.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    It's not politically correct for us to call Paul Gadd, Alex, Eduardo et al. "racists." The kinder, gentler term for the social phenomena observed in this thread is "ethnoreligious prejudice" and the rationalization of same. It's not racism per se, but it's still the sort of thing that Good White People™ tend to frown upon, even if it's not quite as bad as raping children.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    It's not politically correct for us to call Paul Gadd, Alex, Eduardo et al. "racists."

    nor is it even actually correct.

    The kinder, gentler term for the social phenomena observed in this thread is "ethnoreligious prejudice"

    which in other words, is like saying they know that different people will hold different beliefs, and as a result will behave differently. This kind of "out of the box thinking", though radical and annoying to commies, has its roots in ancient logic, the most steadfast enemy of alarmism and shrill chatter.

    An example would be: understanding that Muslims are less likely to eat pork, because of their religious convictions; or accepting that Jews are more likely to celebrate Hanukkah than Christians. These types are even nuanced enough in their understanding of religion that they are aware different folk from the same region may have different beliefs, or that those nominally of the same religion will have grown up with different practices, traditions and even interpretations of holy scriptures, depending perhaps on what region they are from, among other things.

    They practice the kind of level headed, rational, pragmatic approach to religious and social assessment that drives good commies up the wall. This is because their approach sharply contrasts and undermines the commie's manic assertions that "we" (humans, the world over) are all the same and are all equally likely to commit any act of good or evil. Thankfully, those wishing to reduce human free will, collectivize humanity and force upon mankind their own twisted brand of equality are always thwarted by pragmatism and honesty.

    Those in the know recognize that the reality of the situation is that some types of people are far more likely to commit certain acts than others. Some of these acts have positive benefits for modern society, others do not. That is why "profiling" exists, and works.

    It's not racism per se

    , it is just that these people have their eyes open and are not blinded by leftist agendas meant to level and subjugate the masses into one large easily mailable homogeneous block.

    it's still the sort of thing that Good White People™ tend to frown upon

    For the benefit of the readership, the "Good White People™" is a fairly young religion characterized by a bizarre mix of extreme self-hate and self-righteousness . The congregation mainly consists of physically inferior left wing commie pukes who repeatedly apologize to "non whites" around them, for their own imaginary and immeasurable "white privilege" that they enjoy for simply being born "white". The color of their skin and perceived privileges received makes GWP™ adherents uncomfortable with their own bodies, imagining their lives would be so much more tragically romantic and meaningful, if only they were an oppressed minority. The irony of this of course is that GWP™ encourages and further baits racial tension in communities for repeatedly acknowledging something which isn't there, thus confusing issues and muddying waters, while passively aggressively insulting everyone adherents come across.

    Defenders of GWP™ state that the groups practices are based on the fear of the eventual "day of retribution", where globally, all non-whites will rise up against their "former masters" ( GWP™ term for non-GWP™ whites). GWP™ adherents believe that they will be spared cleansing and rather, rightfully, be put to work as slaves to pay for the abomination of their forefathers. This state of GWP™ slavery is referred to as "GW Nirvana" by adherents, as it allows them to atone for their past lives evil etc etc etc.................

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    If you have to talk to white supremacists, never use the "r-word". Rely on the euphemism "ethnoreligious prejudice." They won't reject that label, because it sounds sciencey.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    How about defending your ludicrous implications that every man in the world is equally likely to rape, rather than my demonstratively more logical conclusion that some groups are far more likely to rape than others?

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    How about defending your ludicrous implications that every man in the world is equally likely to rape

    That's your ludicrous inference. Keep it to yourself.

    rather than my demonstratively more logical conclusion [British Muslims] are fare more likely to rape [white women] than others

    Because it's wrong, and questioning it provoked a strong emotional response that suggests to me that you're less invested in the endeavor of preventing rape than you are in promoting ethnoreligious prejudice.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    That's your ludicrous inference.

    ..........but it isnt.

    I would like to draw attention to your constant parroting of the fact that, because the majority of the UK male population is "white", as is the majority of the UK female population, most rapes will be committed by white people against other white people. This is true, but irrelevant. You go on to use this fact as a non sequitur in logic, to state that therefore, no particular groups are more likely to commit rape than any others, because most rape is committed by whites against whites, or alternatively that, examples of groups which are well known and proven to be of a greater risk to the general public on average should be ignored because they are in the minority and because white on white crime is more important. Either way, I am baffled as to why you would choose to igonore the facts... though I strongly suspect it has something to do with your apologist brainwashing and political leanings. (Pandering.)

    rather than my demonstratively more logical conclusion [British Muslims] are fare more likely to rape [white women] than others

    Because it's wrong.

    But I didn't say that, did I? If you feel the need to literally put words in my text in order to legitimize your nonsensical accusations, fair enough; far be it from me to prevent you from machine gunning footbullets every time your apologist hand meets keyboard.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    Scooter to the rescue (#fail).

    Disadvantages of non-white people are FAKE?

    You are arguing that non white people are disadvantaged because of the color of their skin? Thinking about it for just half a second, I know plenty of non white people who are not in the slightest bit disadvantaged.....which leads me to believe that.....non-white people are not disadvantaged by virtue of being non-white. Which would logically mean that to imply that they are is...um....damn whats the word? Oh yeah - racist.

    My [Chinese] maid [from a poor village and family in rural {insert province} in China] had EVERY advantage of [rich, well connected] WASPY Americans and Europeans [from "old families" the other side of the world, with inherited wealth and influence], and it's her own damn fault she's a poverty-stricken peasant [instead of being born to a high ranking CCP member with a chauffeur driven audi].

    Oops! By not accepting that there are (many) other (and far more important) matters at play other than skin color and ethnicity, you have just accidentally admitted to being "racist". By your logic would positively discriminate in favor of "non-whites" because, in your eyes, the poor little things have had less advantages than they would have, had they been born white. (Utter crap.)

    I would love to introduce you to some people who would be hugely amused by your assumption that they are underprivileged (got unlucky being born non-white) because of their skin color. Alternatively, there are places chock filled with underprivileged white folk you should visit. (Scooter: "Oh yeah shit, theres a place called eastern europe where the poor are white...)

    Guess im going to have to spell this out for you - the fact that your maid is not white has nothing to do with her level of disadvantage.

    Go think about that one for a bit....you racist.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    most rapes will be committed by white people against other white people. This is true, but irrelevant ['cuz we're talkin' about Muslim-on-white rape, and we don't take kindly to talking about other kinds of rape in these parts, spit]. You go on to use this fact as a non sequitur in logic, to state that therefore, no particular groups are more likely to commit rape than any others

    The non sequitur lies in your inference of something that I had never implied. However, that is the null hypothesis of your own assertion. If you haven't even considered it, then you're not doing the science. You're doing the racisms.

    I did say, however, that rapists are more likely to prey upon people of their own ethnic group, which might suggest your Final Solution to the #Muslimsrapingwhitewomen trend might actually create a social environment that is more permissive of white-white rape than Muslim-white rape thereby lulling white women into a false sense of security, since we agree that women stand a higher chance of being raped by men who are ethnoreligiously similar to them than by men from another ethnoreligious group.

    [British Muslims] are far more likely to rape [white women] than others

    If that's not what you implied--strongly suggested by your failure to repudiate the OP--then you are wildly off-topic. Go make another thread about how "some people rape more than other people."

  • Saint - Spartacus
  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    The non sequitur lies in your inference of something that I clearly never stated.

    No, it doesn't, because a non-sequitur can not be "inferred", by virtue of the meaning of the term (check now for fear of future footbullets).

    strongly suggests

    maybe your trolldar is faulty - please point out where I strongly suggested this?

    "Final Solution"

    Succumbing to Godwin's law earnz you yet more #epicfailz.

    failure to repudiate the OP

    So now Im in trouble for not having a go at OP?
    Bashing OP provides no sport at all, its like taking girlfriends from a Dando, but here goes:

    OP, you're a cunt for your choice of title and opening line of this post, which are both untrue, essentially lies by fact of omission. You are also a cunt for posting a thread designed solely for the purposes of trolling and race baiting.

    Go make another thread about how "some people rape more than other people."

    How about you go start a thread about how "no particular groups of people rape any more than any other particular groups of people". See how that goes and letmeknowwouldya? kewl.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    No, it doesn't, because a non-sequitur can not be "inferred", by virtue of the meaning of the term

    alt text

    most rapes will be committed by white people against other white people.

    does not imply:

    no particular groups of people rape any more than any other particular groups of people

    There is no logical sequence to get from what I actually said to what you're inarticulately trying to make me say. It's a non sequitur. You're out of line.

    Godwin's law

    No, I think it was you and Eduardo who brought it up first, but I'll gently applaud your attempt at appropriation of Internet culture, anyway. By "final solution" I was just referring to the first and last time you mentioned a way to solve the #Muslimsrapewhitewomen problem: "note the threat, spread the word, raise awareness, [ethnic cleansing]."

    no particular groups of people rape any more than any other particular groups of people

    As I said earlier, heterosexual men are far more likely to rape than any other group of people on the planet, and as that is a much larger group of people than British Muslim men, the imperative to "note the threat, spread the word, raise awareness etc." is commensurately greater. At least, I think it is to those of us who don't sanction public displays of ethnoreligious prejudice, anyway.

    Warsi is "brave" for saying race plays a role in rape

    OP is a "cunt" for race-baiting

    lolwut

    Even ignoring this manifest contradiction, your facile attempt to repudiate the OP comes dozens of posts after you expressed your resentment for Muslims in general and me in particular. Too little, too late.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    misuse of otherwise funny meme

    You can post as many pics of Inigo as you like, it doesn't change the fact that you cant "infer" a non sequitur, thus your attempts at lulz instead render yourself the object of it. (Again, please look up the meaning of non-sequitur).

    No, I think it was Eduardo who brought up fascism first.

    This has nothing to do with Godwins' Law, and fascism does not equal Nazism. (Please look up Godwins' Law)

    heterosexual men are more likely to rape than any other group of people on the planet

    Your argument is thus: winged creatures are more likely to take flight than creatures without wings, so penguins are just as likely to take flight as eagles - and that it would be "birdist" to suggest that eagles are more likely to fly than penguins ("birdist", rather than just logical).

    Warsi is "brave" for saying race plays a role in rape

    Again you feel the need to attempt to re-write history and misquote me in order to suit your argument. My true quote was:

    This has nothing to do with anglo-saxon racism or a concept of "they are raping our white english women"; it everything to do with identifying a group which poses a threat to women, especially young women, and subsequently, thanks to brave Baroness Warsi, a trend.

    Thus, what I implied was that Warsi is brave for publicly noting that among some groups of Muslim, Pakistani men, of which she has a social understanding of, there is a predisposition towards holding such low levels of respect for women (including white women, which garner the least respect of all) that they are deemed "fair game" for rape. And I stand by my comment.

    Even ignoring this manifest contradiction,

    Please demonstrate this manifest contradiction to the board, without your added inferences, misquotes and general slander.

    your facile attempt to repudiate the OP comes dozens of posts after you expressed your resentment for Muslims in general

    Please demonstrate to the board how I have expressed my resentment for Muslims in general.

    and me in particular.

    You mistake pity for resentment.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    most rapes will be committed by white people against other white people.

    does not imply:

    no particular groups of people rape any more than any other particular groups of people

    There is no logical sequence to get from what I actually said to what you're inarticulately trying to make me say. Your inference contains a non sequitur. You're out of line.

    Godwin's Law

    Ctrl+f says you're the first person to mention Nazism in this thread.

    alt text

    This has nothing to do with anglo-saxon racism or a concept of "they are raping our white english women"; it everything to do with identifying a group which poses a threat to women, especially young women, and subsequently, thanks to brave Baroness Warsi, a trend.

    Total contradiction.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    when you control for differences in socioeconomic status, whatever meager correlation you are presuming will shrink or disappear

    implies that:

    Despite differences individuals' character, habits, social norms, tradition and religious belief, people from the same "socioeconomic" class are all equally likely to commit rape.

    It also implies that:

    you can not progress towards a "solution" by segregating people of the same "socioeconomic status" into different groups, attributing different risk values to them.

    Which I and Warsi disagree with. I think that using race as a definitive grouping factor would not help you progress towards a "solution" at all. Using culture (which just happens to be predominantly exhibited by a number of persons with the same regional and religious background, but certainly not all or even most people with the same regional and religious background) may work very well. Add to that a shared workplace, employer or watering hole..

    Ctrl+f says you're the first person to mention Nazism in this thread.

    Dando plz, no one is dumb enough to fall for this. If they are, they also probably do not know that your mentioning of "Final Solution" was meant in reference to Hitler and the Nazis. Again, please look up the meaning of Godwins' Law, the invoking of which does not require the word "Nazi" to be used, but for a comparative reference to Hitler or the Nazis to be made. But you know this, because your education "came from the internet".

    Manifest contradiction

    As far as I can see, the only people to use the word "race" were Vaz, saying that he

    did not believe the crimes were a "race issue"

    and Nicholas Watt who wrote the inflammatory "says race played a role" line at the top.

    Total contradiction.

    No.

    Let me spell it out for you: Warsi implied that race "played a role" here, but not in the way you think. She said that there exists a specific combination of nationality and religion that played a significant role in terms of the gang's internal legitimizing for their actions. The reference to "race" only comes in whereby she mentions that "white" girls are considered third class citizens, thus "fair game" for rape - i.e. the mention of race (rather than nationality and religion) was in reference to the racism of the rapists due to their greater inclination towards raping white girls because they saw them as third class citizens - not that there is more likelihood for there to be more rapists of a certain race than others.

    So....also no manifest contradiction.

    I direct you to this follow up story: UK Equality Chief Trevor Phillips Comments On The Case

    If you cant be bothered to read it, I will pick out the nuggets for you that might be of interest to you:

    Equalities chief Trevor Phillips has described as ‘fatuous’ the idea that there was no racial link in the Rochdale child sex grooming case.

    Yesterday, Mr Phillips, the chairman of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, said it would be a ‘national scandal’ if it emerged that social services and schools had not acted on reports of abuse for fear of ‘demonising’ minority communities.

    'I think anybody who says that the fact that most of the men are Asian and most of the children are white is not relevant, I mean that’s just fatuous.’

    Mr Phillips went on to say it would be wrong if action had not been taken to protect children in care for fear of inflaming racial tensions.

    He said: ‘The other issue would be if anybody in any of the agencies that are supposed to be caring for these children – schools, social services and so on – took the view that being aggressively interventionist to save these children would lead to the demonisation of some group because of the ethnicity.’

    So there you have it, Dando, your viewpoints have been described as fatuous by the UKs equality minister. I dont think you can get any more politically correct than the UKs equality minister...

    Pssst..... heres one that you'll like though:

    But he added: ‘By focusing on race, you are diverting from the reality which is men. Most of them were taxi drivers but no one is talking about this as an issue for the taxi drivers’ community.’

    Well, I bloody well am, "we" all know taxi drivers are creepy.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    when you control for differences in socioeconomic status, whatever meager correlation you are presuming will shrink or disappear

    implies that:

    Despite differences individuals' character, habits, social norms, tradition and religious belief, people from the same "socioeconomic" class are all equally likely to commit rape.

    Nope. But what it does imply is that socioeconomic status has a stronger relationship with criminality than does ethnoreligious identity--an inconvenient truth for someone who is trying to argue that Muslims like to rape white women.

    Godwin's Law

    Ctrl+f says you're the first person to mention Nazism in this thread.

    Dando plz, no one is dumb enough to fall for this. If they are, they also probably do not know that your mentioning of "Final Solution" was meant in reference to Hitler and the Nazis.

    By "final solution" I was just referring to the first and last time you mentioned a way to solve the problem of Muslims raping white women: "note the threat, spread the word, raise awareness, [ethnic cleansing]."

    Original context:

    I did say, however, that rapists are more likely to prey upon people of their own ethnic group, which might suggest your Final Solution to the #Muslimsrapingwhitewomen trend might actually create a social environment that is more permissive of white-white rape than Muslim-white rape thereby lulling white women into a false sense of security, since we agree that women stand a higher chance of being raped by men who are ethnoreligiously similar to them than by men from another ethnoreligious group.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    Nope.

    err...but Yepz..

    But what it does imply is that socioeconomic status has a stronger relationship with criminality than does ethnoreligious identity

    No. It just implies that socioeconomic status is the ONLY variable, "the control" of which would level the field.

    By "final solution" I was just referring to the first and last time you mentioned a way to solve the problem of Muslims raping white women: "note the threat, spread the word, raise awareness, [ethnic cleansing]."

    First of all, I never mentioned "a way to solve the problem of Muslims raping white women"...but wait wait - So you are now admitting that yes, it was you indeed that first invoked Godwins's law due to your reference to "final solution" and ethnic cleansing? Thanks, good sport. I repeat - I never mentioned a "problem of Muslims raping white women", you only parrot this in attempts to mud-sling, and it isn't working. I merely said that if there were a hypothetical "problem" (which I would like to remind casual observers, was thought up by you) I said that I would note the threat, spread the word and raise awareness - that is, of the problem, not of your fantasy proposed "final solution" [ethnic cleansing] tripe.

    Of your gibberish re:

    might actually create a social environment that is more permissive of white-white rape than Muslim-white rape thereby lulling white women into a false sense of security

    I don't think anyone is gonna get "lulled into a false sense of security" (what a moronic statement) just because word goes out that there have recently been a local spate of non-white men attacking women. Imagine LWF thinking to herself "yeah....i'll be safe for the time being from all suspicious looking/acting white guys; I dont need to worry about them because Ive heard its the non-whites doing all the raping these days.." Seriously BW, the caliber of your BS is declining.

    If you can not win the debate, just give it up - rather than continuing to embarrass yourself by attempting to slander others simply because they trounce you intellectually.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    By "final solution" I was just referring to the first and last time you mentioned a way to solve the problem of Muslims raping white women: "note the threat, spread the word, raise awareness, [ethnic cleansing]."

    So you are now admitting that yes, it was you indeed that first invoked Godwins's law

    Ctrl+f says you're the first person to mention Nazis or Godwin's Law. Internet traditions vary in which is more fail. A reductio ad hitlerum might signal the end of the discussion, with the person invoking Godwin's Law automatically being declared the loser, especially when he's trying to distance himself from the obnoxiously racist belief that Muslims like to rape white women. Either way you lost, but to be honest you were doomed when you tried to "remind" me that this topic is not about race.

    socioeconomic status has a stronger relationship with criminality than does ethnoreligious identity

    does not at all imply

    socioeconomic status is the ONLY variable, "the control" of which would level the field.

    B does not follow from A. It's a non sequitur.

    What it means is that socioeconomic status is a more important factor than ethnoreligious identity. What it implies is that your disproportionate emphasis on ethnoreligious identity as a cause of rape--at the exclusion of all other factors--is more likely than not a symptom of ethnoreligious prejudice, which I'm becoming increasingly tired of typing just to cater to the sensitivities of white supremacists.

    I never mentioned a "problem of Muslims raping white women"

    And yet you keep posting in a forum thread devoted to that very topic in support of a politician who said that very thing. How peculiar. Are you sure you're in the right thread?

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    implying that non-sequitur can be implied

    (it still cant please look up the definition of non-sequitur.)

    when you control for differences in socioeconomic status, whatever meager correlation you are presuming will shrink or disappear

    (does in fact imply)

    that socioeconomic status is the only variable, "the control" of which would level the field.

    you lose. (sorry)

    distance oneself from the obnoxious belief that Muslims like to rape white women

    at no point did I say that "Muslims like to rape white women/children", or support OPs assertion that "Pakistani men like to rape white children"

    in support of a politician who said that very thing.

    Now you are trying to put words into the mouth of Warsi. That is not what she said. (please read the article.)

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    alex mentioned first in new thread title

    implies

    alex is the dominant one

    and

    h8z posting comments then chickening out

    proves it.

    Alex +1 #epicwin

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    alt text

    Oh. Okay. So that's how it is. Enter: teh greytext.

    implying Dando's is not the powerest bottom

    alt text

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    I believe a famous man once said something along the lines of "it is better to stay silent and appear to be a beardy weirdy, than post docking gifs and prove yourself to be one".

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    I don't see how "posting docking gifs" proves that one is a "beardy weirdy". Thats a non sequitur, similar to the mistake in Alex's inferential processes that led him to the conclusion that "all groups commit rape at the same rate" even after I said that heterosexual men are far more likely to commit rape.

    Coincidentally, this statement Alex mistakenly believes to be implied by my own is what one ought to consider as a null hypothesis before saying something utterly fucking facile like "some groups rape more than others." Or one would if they were a social scientist concerned with preventing ethnoreligious prejudice from coloring their observations of sex crime data.

    On the other hand, if that social scientist's own ethnoreligious prejudice runs so deep that he eschews statistical analysis (one can only assume his refusal to work with numbers is because they are Arab), he'd skip that and proceed to "note the threat, spread the word, raise awareness, [ethnic cleansing]" on an Internet forum, to stop them from raping white women.

    tl;dr

    I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that ethnoreligious prejudice and racism are more strongly related to one another than Muslim identity and rape.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say...

    .................you're butthurt.

    Beardy Weirdy,

    Most of your above post has been covered throughout the duration of this long running thread, so I will simply direct casual observers to scroll upwards, if they have missed the many lulz. Your parroting patheticness has already been well routed and it isnt worth my time again. It might be worth mentioning one more time that your viewpoints on the matter have been described as fatuous by the UKs equality minister, who agrees with Warsi, and whose opinion is umpteen more times more valid and pertinent than yours.

    I don't see how "posting docking gifs" proves that one is a "beardy weirdy". Thats a non sequitur

    It is not a non-sequitur, (illustrated below). Please look up the meaning of non-sequitur.

    Fact 1: People that read these forums often know roughly what you look like.

    Which logically means:

    They also know that you have a hideous merkin of a beard attached to your face.

    Which logically means:

    They know you are "beardy".

    Fact 2: People that read these forums often also know roughly what you like to post.

    Which logically means:

    They suspect you to be quite weird.

    Fact 3: Docking gifs are weird.

    Which logically means:

    When a merkin faced gnome troll posts docking gifs, the online community no longer just suspect him to be quite weird. They become immovably convinced of it.

    Which is another way of saying:

    You remove any and all suspicion that you might not be quite as weird as you appear and come across online, and fully convince people that you are, indeed, a "Beardy Weirdy".

    Just embrace the term. You did before, even changing your handle to a variant of it.

    Now:

    (Please look up the meaning of non-sequitur to save yourself yet more #footbullets 'n #epicfailz )

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    Shouldn't that disturbing gif be deleted already now...??

    but that might prevent people from recognizing just how odd "t3h BW" really is.

    Best to leave it there, it helps to let others note the threat, spread the word and raise awareness.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    First the dramatic self-pwnage of invoking Godwin's Law on himself, now forcing this "Beardy Weirdy" meme. I don't have a palm big enough to accommodate my face. Because beard.

    Alex, I see that you aren't taking this issue very seriously, as you just ignored the content of my post to inveigh a tepid personal attack on the basis of beardliness, because you associate unshorn facial hair with Islam, and raping white women. I pity you for being a victim of these sorts of prejudicial cognitions, but I cannot abide your rationalization of them in a public forum, because that leads to racism far more surely than being Muslim leads to rape. Thus it is imperative that I "note the threat, spread the word, raise awareness," but unlike you I will eschew the whole ethnic cleansing thing. Not because it's not nice, but because it is useless.

    BTW, your so-called "facts" do not follow from the original premise. You have substituted the original assertion with a different sequence of so-called "facts".

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    Resorting to usage of bold definitely a mark of winning.

    pipe down muppet. your contribution has already been dealt with.

    invoking Godwin's Law on himself

    would the casual observers please scroll up, please scroll up, please scroll up ^^

    ignored the content of my post

    already dealt with, please scroll up

    because that leads to racism

    lol, yes, I am the racist pied piper leading all astray. lulwut? oh yeah, please scroll up

    I will eschew the whole ethnic cleansing thing

    (Ctr+f)

    BTW, your so-called "facts" do not follow from the original premise.

    Yes, they do. (Casual observers please scroll up.)

    Beardy Weirdy, I take it you have now looked up the meaning of non-sequitur, well done!

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    casual observers

    I think you need professional observation, at this point.

    I'd like to thank the mods for removing the hate speech "Muslims like to rape white children" from the thread title and replacing it with Alex's name, so now we all know that the rationalization of ethnoreligious prejudice is so very, very important to him.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    I think you need professional observation

    said the docking gif posting gnome.

    Still using bold Gonzo. What did you say? You're going to cry about it in the back of a taxi?

    so now we all know that unemotional discussion, free of kneejerk leftist obfuscations and bastardized quotes, as well as social development issues in the UK is so very, very important to him.

    FTFY

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    bastardizes a quote to show how important it is to not bastardize quotes

    OH TEH IRONY IS SO CLEVAR

    Next he'll say OP was his troll account and this epic saga of buttfrustration is just a allegorical proxy for discussing other current events.

    I have quoted Alex accurately in accordance with all of the relevant laws and regulations throughout this entire discussion. I invite casual observers to confirm this, but my sources indicate that they are fresh out of fucks to give.

    Anyhoo, Alex has tacitly admitted not only to ethnoreligious prejudice, but now to the politicization of rape. Noted.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    Beardy Weirdy:

    I have quoted Alex accurately, but have misquoted the article the discussion is in reference to, and Baroness Warsi, numerous times. I have implied that people said things that they didnt, and that they meant things they didnt, with the aim of hopefully rendering the nonsense I have written and the footbullets I have shot to be at first glance pertinent. Of course, anyone who takes the time to read both the thread and the article will recognize me for the disingenuous bullshitting little merkin faced gnome that I am.
    It is also worth noting that my viewpoints on the matter have been described as fatuous by the UKs equality minister, who agrees with Warsi, and whose opinion is umpteen more times more valid and pertinent than my own.

    FTFY

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    misquoted the article

    Wrong again.

    OP misquoted the article. You didn't bother to address this until 100+ posts into the thread, because you consider your opinions re: Islam and Dando to be that much more important than the facts. And even then it was only because I had pointed it out first.

    It is also worth noting that [Dando's] viewpoints on the matter have been described as fatuous by the UKs equality minister

    This is absolutely false, as I am certain that she does not even know who the fuck I am or what my viewpoints are, but I am flattered that you would suggest that I have such reach and influence.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    Wrong again.

    Saying this does not make it so.

    You didn't bother to address this until I critisised you for not doin it thinking you wouldnt do it but then you did so i thort woah i better criticize you for doin it

    FTFY

  • Simen Wangberg

    Holy shit that gif is awesome.

    Are you guys talking about something?

    If so...why?

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    confirms no one gives a fuck by returning to thread and posting

    lolwut?

    This is absolutely false, as I am certain that she does not even know who the fuck I am or what my viewpoints are, but I am flattered that you would suggest that I have such reach and influence.

    Lolz, yet more footbulletz: "she" is a "he".

    Psssst....Warsi and Equality minister are not the same person. Please re-read the thread.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    It is also worth noting that [Dando's] viewpoints on the matter have been described as fatuous by the UKs equality minister

    This is absolutely false, as I am certain that she does not even know who the fuck I am or what my viewpoints are, but I am flattered that you would suggest that I have such reach and influence.

    Lolz, yet more footbulletz: "she" is a "he".

    Oh?

    alt text

    Psssst....Warsi and Equality minister are not the same person. Please re-read the thread.

    Please kill yourself.

  • Simen Wangberg

    That cat is TOAST

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    yawn...

    Oh?

    Oh yes. +1 #footbullet for Beardy Weirdy.

    Yesterday, Mr Phillips, the chairman of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, said it would be a ‘national scandal’ if it emerged that social services and schools had not acted on reports of abuse for fear of ‘demonising’ minority communities.

    'I think anybody who says that the fact that most of the men are Asian and most of the children are white is not relevant, I mean that’s just fatuous.’

    Mr Phillips went on to say it would be wrong if action had not been taken to protect children in care for fear of inflaming racial tensions.

    He said: ‘The other issue would be if anybody in any of the agencies that are supposed to be caring for these children – schools, social services and so on – took the view that being aggressively interventionist to save these children would lead to the demonisation of some group because of the ethnicity.’

    So there you have it, BW, your viewpoints have been described as fatuous by the UKs equality minister.

    Please re-read the thread.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Dude ain't even a minister of parliament, let alone "the UK equality minister." He's a civil servant in a non-departmental public body. You don't even know who runs your government, Alex, and your flagrant attempt to pad his credentials is indicative of your pathological dishonesty.

    That said, nobody is questioning the law enforcement response or the actions of government agencies in their use of ethnoreligious discrimination. That's unavoidable in the course of police work (racial profiling is a different matter).

    What is questionable is right-wing politicians, OP, Alex, and Eduardo leaping to the conclusion that Muslims broadly constitute a greater threat than white dudes, as that is ethnoreligious prejudice.

    Sockpuppetry noted. Bring more. I'm enjoying this.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Nazir Afzal, the Chief Crown Prosecutor for the North West of England:

    ‘What some communities believe is there is a right of self-determination for men but not women. Women are seen as lesser beings.’

    But he added: ‘By focusing on race, you are diverting from the reality which is men. Most of them were taxi drivers but no one is talking about this as an issue for the taxi drivers’ community.’

Please login to post a reply to this thread.

WeLiveInBeijing

WeLiveInBeijing.com is a social community for people living in or traveling to Beijing.

Powered by: Bloc