OT: British lowered voting age....
- Thread starter HotMop
- Start date
- Status
Crime up over 3000% in areas where the migrants are dropped off (including areas surrounding London). Rape up over 60% in the last four years in England alone. Funny how this coincides with their third world importation. If you think this is normal for all western countries you are one sick pervert
I agree with the premise, but not at frickin 65.
The closer you get to that number, the younger you realize it is, or should be. People shouldn't be losing cognitive ability (or almost dead) until at least 75 these days.
That has nothing to do with immigration. It all went to hell when they started selling cold beer and let the pubs stay open until midnight.
I done smartened up real good. Stop throwing money at (insert whatever I don't like). How about that one?
I'd like to smarten up some more. Please share your vast, multifaceted reading list, books and articles, that enables you to provide such astute social and political commentary.
The average life expectancy of a 65 years old in the US is around 20 more years. The average 65 year old probably puts more care into thinking about where things are going for the next 20 than the average 16 year old does into the next 20 or 50 years.
People on both sides of the aisle do it all the time.
I often do it when I think the long term overall societal benefit of something outweighs my personal immediate benefit.
My state has done it for countless state and federal elections over the last 10 years and it doesnt seem to be close to ending either.
I like Mississippi but the ones who live in MS and think "how can people vote against their own interests" should realize they likely don't actually know what others believe is best for them. My guess is that not many would think "my best interests are me and my family moving to Mississippi."
Last edited:
It appears you just told @QuaoarsKing that he drinks MAGA koolaid and is a 'trumptard'...and you werent being sarcastic. Did you forget the ** at the end? Hopefully you forgot the ** at the end.
Do you think Ocean Springs or Biloxi or any other city in MS would stay the same if the population of any one of them became 70% Muslim within a few years? Is it Islamophobic of me to think it might change in ways that I wouldn't find appealing? I have daughters and I'm not especially fond of the way women are treated in majority Muslim countries. When I go to Europe it's not like I seek out majority Muslim neighborhoods. I did get hammered once in the Kreuzberg, the Turkish section of Berlin, but I was much younger then. And Turks are a bit different. They don't particularly care for Arabs and Turkish women aren't interested in covering up either.
Last edited:
Islamophobia is a term used to describe the fear, prejudice, or hatred directed towards Islam, Muslims, or people perceived to be Muslim. It can manifest as hostility, discrimination, and even violence.
I could see some people viewing your position as Islamophobic and others viewing it as acceptable.
No, the city would likely feel culturally different than now.
Based on the definition in red above, I would say its 50-50. You are definitely acting in prejudice(you have no idea how your daughters would be treated in Biloxi if it were 70% Muslim) and have a fear that the change wouldnt be to your liking, but it also doesnt seem like you literally fear Muslims or harbor violent views.
I could see some people viewing your position as Islamophobic and others viewing it as acceptable.
I'm not afraid of Muslims, I'm technically not Islamophobic, but I don't want live in a city that reflects the culture of Islam, the culture that's developed over centuries in the Islamic world and is present in much of the Islamic world today. It's fine for them but I don't care for it. They do have low rates of divorce, out-of-wedlock births, alcoholism and drug abuse but I like beer and pork and seeing scantily clad women on beaches. I also believe in women's equality. Thus, just like someone wouldn't want redneck culture taking over San Francisco, I prefer places with limited Islamic influence. Immigration matters. It depends who the immigrants are. The Danes are figuring out that they like being Danish and are paying immigrants, primarily those from Africa and the Middle East, to leave. It also depends on where people come from. Turks, for instance, are different from Arabs. I don't think the term Islamophobia is all that accurate especially when it describes preferences based on reality.
This is from Sweden. Some 24% of gang rapes are committed by immigrants from Afghanistan. What's the benefit to Sweden, natives Swedes and Swedish women of taking in immigrants and migrants from Afghanistan? In what ways do they enhance and improve Swedish culture and life in Sweden (well the food is pretty good)? Or is someone being Islamophobic for asking whether or not some immigrants are net benefits to society? That is, is an increase in rapes an appropriate tradeoff so as not to be regarded as Islamophobic (as long as it doesn't happen to one of your loved ones)?
Attachments
-
Gv5uYh3WoAA3khc.png
You have an ability to express your views in a reasonable and reasoned manner. Many on here are not able to do that. They just post 'Islam bad' and 'immigration bad'. They assign bad things that have happened to 'the immigrants' and blame 'the Muslims' for vague and subjective changes in society. They hardly ever reference actual data that is verifiable and trusted.
This thread started off in high gear with claims that the voting age is changing to take advantage of something that, based on actual numbers which have since been provided, isnt even a real advantage.
I dont think it is inappropriate to identify concerning crime trends and address them. In general, that seems acceptable to me if the people are immigrants or 7th generation born in that country. It seems acceptable to me if the group is male or female, young or old, etc.
Pushing for change within those groups also seems acceptable.
Prosecuting those who commit crimes is another thing that seems totally acceptable.
Continuing your Sweden rape stats, 52.3% of convicted rapists were born in Sweden. So domestic rapists should also be viewed as a category and there should be a push for change within that group as well.In 2021, a study found that of 3039 offenders aged 15–60 convicted of raping over 18 years of age in the 2000–2015 period, 59.2% had an immigrant background and 47.7% were born outside Sweden.
Rape in Sweden - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
^ I get it, that example of mine will get push back, I am sure. My point though is that anyone who rapes should be prosecuted and we should be concerned about all groups who commit violent crime in disproportionate numbers. We should work to find out the reasons why and work to reduce incidents.
You disagree completely?
- My post says that people who rape should be convicted, regardless of what group(s) they may be assigned to.
- My post says that understanding why some groups commit specific crimes at a higher rate than other groups is good to analyze and address so crime decreases.
How in the total 17 can you disagree with that?
One way to reduce rapes is by not letting in people from cultures with a higher incidence of rape that remains high even after the first generation. Culture matters. The culture of the Jim Crow South was wrong. The culture of say Somalia or Afghanistan is not something I think America should copy. Those cultures are products of their people, like the Jim Crow South was. That is Somalia is in large part the way it is because it's full of Somalis and run by Somalis. That's the same with Afghanistan. Good luck being gay there. The South changed. Let others do that first before coming here. Immigrants aren't interchangeable. No other immigrant group is as successful and has low crime rates and low rates of out-of-wedlock births as East Asians and South Asians. We don't have to let in everyone and we can pick and choose based on objective data about who contributes the most to society. Thus, I suspect, considering the data gathered, that Swedish women and gay men are reasonable if they're Islamophobic. Not sure why Swedes let in so many people other than because of guilt, pathological empathy or some idea that all people are interchangeable, something that reality shows isn't true. Also, Latinos tend to be hard working and have low crime rates although their out-of-wedlock birth rates mean that many will rely on public services to a significant degree. But, as a group, it tends to assimilate and intermarry with whites (Asians do as well, especially Asian women and white men).
Last edited:
Of course, we should be concerned with all violent crime, regardless of whether or not the person was born in the country where the crime was committed.
That being said, it is reasonable to highlight the 47.7% over the 52.3% because they were let into the country. That is a decision point that can reasonably be scrutinized.
For example, if someone is born in this country, and then, all of a sudden, at age 27 with no criminal record, commits a violent crime, it's hard to argue that they should have been removed from society before they committed the crime. However, if someone is born outside of the country and then is allowed to enter and then commits a violent crime, it is reasonable to scrutinize the process/policy that allowed them to enter the country.
I'm not even saying that a different decision should be made. I don't know enough about it, but I just want to point out this difference between the 52.3% and 47.7%.
Oh, I see what you are trying now.
My comments apply to age, gender, sex, religion, etc. Male Christian Nationalists coukd be the group that is a concern.
It isn't a racial bias. Weak attempt.
Yes I’d include all income taxes but not sales taxes. When I introduce the bill it will include a flat tax for everyone so everyone will pay the same percentage of their earnings.
You understand that when you take a relatively small number, below 10%, and multiply it by 1.44, you still have a relatively small number?
A "44% increase" doesn't mean you went from 6% to 50%. It means you went from {for example} 6% to 8.6%, or something of similar magnitude depending on what exactly is being measured with that 44% number.
I assure I understand math more than you but don’t pretend it’s not something to notice
Name a long term societal benefit that is against your personal interest but better for America as a whole that you support.
just one. Be very specific if you can.
- Status