Are Jails Just Societys Way Of Getting Rid Of Undesirible People?

[vidrigjatte]

Actually, that isn't correct Shai. Mitochondria DNA testing has demonstrated conclusively that there is no genetic delineation between races. In fact, if vidrigjatte were to have his mitochondrial DNA tested, then there is a high probability that his genetic material would come very close to individuals of many varying races across the world. It's ironic that he holds the views he does when modern science has proven that he may genetically have more in common with a black man in Nigeria than one of his white neighbors.

That might be. But Swedes in general have more in common genetically with North Germans than any other geographical group in the world. There are population specifics.


Also, chimpanzees and gorillas (and all apes I presume) have far more genetical diversity than humans, but our morphology is considerably more diversed and tangible. Also hair and skin color of course. That states that it's which genes that's important when talking about a direct effect on a being, not how many or how much.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/11/991108090738.htm

 

[vidrigjatte]

I think youre just talking from a priviledged position. You think most Pakistanis leave Pakistan because they want to? I doudt that. The words "seeking a better future" doesn't always mean that people leave their country of origin simply because they don't like it. Most of the times it is because of their low probability to survive in that country. People who leave their country just because they "don't like it there", are usually the educated ones, who can easily be integrated in a foreign society.

I'm talking from a cultural perspective and from the perspective of human nature.

There is a difference between immigrants coming to the US and those coming to Sweden. You get workers because you have low taxes and thus, they can earn a lot of money.
We get more people who just wants money to live off of because higher taxes and better welfare.

And those immigrants who were forced to leave are the ones who usually come against social discrimination and isolation, usualy because they are not educated. And when a society cannot support economicaly a minority, then it is certain that that said minority will descend into crime in order to survive.

They don't descend into crime because they need to survive, they do it because of the culture in the suburbs or because of the genetics. I believe it's culture, but you can't rule anything out.
They get good welfare in Sweden, so that's out of the question.

That's why I always say that migration needs serious economic and political calculations. If a society or it's economy is incapable of supporting a large
population of immigrants, then it should close it's borders. When France allowed the Algerian immigrants to migrate from Algeria, while it was statisticaly proven that it's economy could not support them, it was a certain thing that the immigrants would eventualy start rioting many years later in 2005(Blichy-sous-Bois). We need to be certain about the minority's future before we start accepting them and hope for any integration to take place.

Yes, and here is the problem. We should. Or we ought to.
The problem is that a solution will never come probably. Either the subject is too touchy to raise (in Sweden the government won't calculate how much the welfare costs because it would be like "counting how much human lives are worth." Socialistic, worthless, idiotic and logically inconsistent. If that is the case, why do we count how much money the retirement homes and welfare to the elderly cost? Hmm?) or a solution will never come because of the complexity of all the institutions supporting multiculturalism. These things just hinder the progress in a democratic society.

That "should" will never come to anything other than just a should.

Multiculturalism is just fine. It just needs moderation. Governments should plan their migration policies on data and economic analysis with society as a primary factor, and not on how they would win the upcoming elections(which is what usually happens). Even in the E.U, the Commision decided to allow membership to East European countries long before there existed an economic stability among the previous members, all for the sake of free passage of cheap labour force and financial exploitation of those countries. And the European High Integration cannot take place when the only thing we have in mind is how to expand in order to find new markets and cheap labor force. Economic and social stability comes first, expanding our influence comes second.

And as you talk away about "should" and theories, what are the probable, realistic solutions that might actually happen? That's what important.
The thing with democracy is that the people in charge will always try to win the election. And when they try to adjust and get votes from the majority of humankind, which is very stupid, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what democracy really is.

And all that bullshit about DNA... I will not even bother to give an answer to such an ignorant and absurd comment.

Ah. I'm sure you're an expert on the subject and can teach me about it? Otherwise, you're ignorant.

 

[54192&#cmy]

"Our place on earth largely has to do where we are born. That is a fact. No place is like home. Although everyone should travel and experience life and so on."

LOL I think that is obvious. And if you think I needed that pointed out to me, I must read like a crazy person.

"Where have I hated someone? This is just what people in general believe racial thinking is about."
I never accused you of hating anyone. The first part of my response was to you. The next paragraph was my thoughts.

 

[thataway]

They don't descend into crime because they need to survive, they do it because of the culture in the suburbs or because of the genetics. I believe it's culture, but you can't rule anything out.
They get good welfare in Sweden, so that's out of the question.

I can't speak to Sweden. I've never been there, and know very little about it.

But in the US, you can't possibly extract all of the many reasons that could lead certain demographics to commit crimes more than others from one another. I think pointing to any one particular cause ('it's all genetics,' or 'it's all cultural') is a dangerous oversimplification and extremely presumptuous.

For one, it ignores considerations of how culture is derived. Culture is in many, many ways tied directly to survival, and generally stems from elaborations of the life processes that people need to go through in order to survive, or at least cope with their situation.

Factor into that mix re-enforcement by dominant groups of cultural biases and economic institutions which maintain discriminatory societies and you have long, long chains of institutionalized prejudice. At this point you cannot possibly look at a group of people and say 'it's all your own fault because of your race and your culture/genetics.'

That would be the equivalent of saying that culture exists in a vacuum, when culture is not an isolated entity. Cultures interface constantly, and individuals also cross over into different cultures and assimilate successfully all the time. We do not live in bubbles. If all the Pakistanis stayed in Pakistan, the world's problems would not be solved.

If people would stop telling other people what to do with their lives, and where they should live, and who they should mate with and what kinds of jobs they should be doing, then there might be an improvement though.

 

[Shai Gar]

You think most Pakistanis leave Pakistan because they want to? I doubt that. The words "seeking a better future" doesn't always mean that people leave their country of origin simply because they don't like it.

I dislike this argument.

A persons country and the socio-environment of that country has a hell of a lot to do with that culture of the country. If people are in danger in the country they left they should triple-think the culture that they're attempting to import into another country.

Any person should have the right as laid out in the UDHR to freedom of travel within States. A Pakistani should have the right to lay aside his culture and nationality and become a swede or an aussie should they so desire.

 

[blueflame]

Prison and Jail were created as a humane alternative to punishing someone v.s. stoning, quartering, dungeon, etc. It is a small society that separates people from a larger society. They get free (tax payer money of course) entertainment, education, religion, food, shelter, exercise, and even a job and healthcare, but they have limits on when it is accessable and of course there are no separations of people based on most crimes (a thief might share a cell with a rapist).
Intentionally staying away from the words "normal" and "right and wrong" in the next statement, I will instead say the average person is fully capable of pleasing or displeasing another person or group of people based hierarchy or lack there of, cultural differences, personalities etc. What is considered right or wrong is determined from the opinions shaped by the aforementioned, but what is considered law is based of a general consensus of acceptable and unacceptable social standards of what is considered severely harmful to someone. There is a very thin line between the general population and the imprisioned, and the line is getting thinner. This is not because of a failing society or a failing government but because of human being's increasingly poor distinction between what is actually right or wrong. Example Scenario: Wrong is harming yourself law should be harming someone else. So therefore wrong is using drugs, law should be against drug operations not in control by a government, that leads to blackmailings, murder, etc.

 

[Shai Gar]

Vidrigjatte's argument is a form of reactive racism based in fear. Not fear unfounded, but of fear of Islamification.

It's his stupid naieve misunderstanding that Americans might actually know what's going on in Europe at the moment. I'd not like any administrative action taken on his part, but if the threads could be split where appropriate it'd make two better arguments than one hodgepodge one.

 

[Creon]

I'm not American and I do know whats going on in Europe at the momment.

@VidrigJatte: I'm not even going to continue this conversation with you.

They don't descend into crime because they need to survive, they do it because of the culture in the suburbs or because of the genetics. I believe it's culture, but you can't rule anything out. They get good welfare in Sweden, so that's out of the question.

+

The problem is that a solution will never come probably. Either the subject is too touchy to raise (in Sweden the government won't calculate how much the welfare costs because it would be like "counting how much human lives are worth." Socialistic, worthless, idiotic and logically inconsistent. If that is the case, why do we count how much money the retirement homes and welfare to the elderly cost? Hmm?) or a solution will never come because of the complexity of all the institutions supporting multiculturalism. These things just hinder the progress in a democratic society.

=
Core beliefs that are outdated, based primarily on shock effect and needless to say impossible to prove or debate upon. Logical fallacies based on a false axioma. That of genetic and cultural superiority.

And as you talk away about "should" and theories, what are the probable, realistic solutions that might actually happen? That's what important.

False assumption that ones point is realistic while the opposing is idealistic/unreal/ fake. And without any real logical sequence to base it on.

Ah. I'm sure you're an expert on the subject and can teach me about it? Otherwise, you're ignorant.

The reason I said that is because youre using "DNA" as a supposedly valid justification for national superiority,and to my eyes, it is a long dead excuse for nationalistic ideologies. I'm not even going to try to debate on Reductio Ad Hitlerum terms.

In other words, I'm not interested in what you have to say. You can believe whatever you want, bu since it starts from an axioma I totally reject I'm not going to talk about it.

I dislike this argument.

A persons country and the socio-environment of that country has a hell of a lot to do with that culture of the country. If people are in danger in the country they left they should triple-think the culture that they're attempting to import into another country.

Any person should have the right as laid out in the UDHR to freedom of travel within States. A Pakistani should have the right to lay aside his culture and nationality and become a swede or an aussie should they so desire.

I take for granted that most war refugees from the Middle East are uneducated. So I don't know how they would be able to think about the culture of the country they are migrating to. Of course it is their decision, but let's not be Western-centric here. Not all citizens of many countries know what the word "decision" is. When one lives through an Afghanistan situation, I don't think he cares so much about integration. Mostly he cares about his life and survival. It is the receiving society that cares about that. Of course they are expected to be integrated in the new culture, but steps from society must be taken in order for that to happen, especially in the case of war refugees.

In the case of immigrants from the poor regions of the ex-USSR, who are the basic problem in my country, my objections lies in accepting them when we can't support them economicaly. When we do, then we have no right to scream about their behaviour when they're hungry. Cause thats exactly what happens. If you take a look in the Albanian Community in my country, you're going to start wondering how can those people NOT turn to crime. I would most definetely start killing people if I lived that way. And imagine that those people have passed under no integration programs or reeducation. They just came here, and didn't even speak the language at first.

I understand your point about freedoms and fundamental rights, but isn't survival and integration the primary goals? If a society is incapable of economically supporting more immigrants or refugees, should it be forced to do so? My opinion is no, primarily because it's mostly dysfuctional. And it creates problems in both the citizens and the refugees. Extreme racist attitudes are more likely to appear in those cases. Actually, that's excactly what happens now.

 

[Shai Gar]

Are you aware of how far the rights to freedom of speech have been eroded over there? Nederlands used to be a bastion for the protection of freedom of religion and speech, hell, they protected a lot of people during the witch trials and so on throughout the years. Now it's hard to talk for fear of the minority which is slowly becoming the majority imposing their own religious rules.

Sharia Law is becoming an actual force for legislation. We're seeing the same thing, very very slowly and on a smaller scale here in Australia. There's nothing wrong with Islam. Out of all the religions it's my 4th favourite. (Satanism, Buddhism, Amish Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, so on) But there's something seriously wrong with going to another nation that has a millennia old history and vibrant culture and plastering the culture of the nation you left behind everywhere.

So that some people don't think I'm backing one of the two arguments, I'm actually backing a third. My own. I've got nothing against interracial couples or breeding (allowing only a 20 couples, one child). I similarly back the UDHR which allows for freedom of travel between and within States.

Yeah, I've got no idea why they'd leave the USSR. Plenty of land there for farming and living without government support. If you're self sufficient.

 

[vidrigjatte]

"Our place on earth largely has to do where we are born. That is a fact. No place is like home. Although everyone should travel and experience life and so on."

LOL I think that is obvious. And if you think I needed that pointed out to me, I must read like a crazy person.

"Where have I hated someone? This is just what people in general believe racial thinking is about."
I never accused you of hating anyone. The first part of my response was to you. The next paragraph was my thoughts.

Well, misunderstandings then. I'm an etno-pluralist, that was my point. I think.

 

[vidrigjatte]

I dislike this argument.

A persons country and the socio-environment of that country has a hell of a lot to do with that culture of the country. If people are in danger in the country they left they should triple-think the culture that they're attempting to import into another country.

Any person should have the right as laid out in the UDHR to freedom of travel within States. A Pakistani should have the right to lay aside his culture and nationality and become a swede or an aussie should they so desire.

If that country accepts it in the first place. If the Swedish or the Australian people don't want people from other cultures to assimilate, then it's their right to act on that.

Vidrigjatte's argument is a form of reactive racism based in fear. Not fear unfounded, but of fear of Islamification.

It's his stupid naieve misunderstanding that Americans might actually know what's going on in Europe at the moment. I'd not like any administrative action taken on his part, but if the threads could be split where appropriate it'd make two better arguments than one hodgepodge one.

It's more than that, but yes, islamification has a lot to do with it of course. I don't know what you mean by "reactive racism" though.

I don't think Americans know about what's going on in Europe. Where have I portrayed myself being this way? That's why I've said "In Sweden it's like this and It's like that".

 

[vidrigjatte]

@VidrigJatte: I'm not even going to continue this conversation with you.

Then why did you answer?

+
=
Core beliefs that are outdated, based primarily on shock effect and needless to say impossible to prove or debate upon. Logical fallacies based on a false axioma. That of genetic and cultural superiority.

Hard, yes, impossible, no.

I believe all peoples/races are superior on different things.

False assumption that ones point is realistic while the opposing is idealistic/unreal/ fake. And without any real logical sequence to base it on.

Nope.

The reason I said that is because youre using "DNA" as a supposedly valid justification for national superiority,and to my eyes, it is a long dead excuse for nationalistic ideologies. I'm not even going to try to debate on Reductio Ad Hitlerum terms.

I'm not talking about national superiority. I've already said this before, and if this topic wouldn't be so touchy, this conversation wouldn't even have taken place.

In other words, I'm not interested in what you have to say. You can believe whatever you want, bu since it starts from an axioma I totally reject I'm not going to talk about it.

Fine by me.

I understand your point about freedoms and fundamental rights, but isn't survival and integration the primary goals? If a society is incapable of economically supporting more immigrants or refugees, should it be forced to do so? My opinion is no, primarily because it's mostly dysfuctional. And it creates problems in both the citizens and the refugees. Extreme racist attitudes are more likely to appear in those cases. Actually, that's excactly what happens now.

I agree with you here that a country shouldn't be forced to take in immigrants if their economical situation can't keep up with it and that too many immigrants breed racism (and I mean real racism, hate and fighting and such things), but I don't hold "extreme racist views". If I do, what do you call Hitler's then?

 

[vidrigjatte]

I've already made my point. Your statistics are a lie perhaps not even told maliciously, but misrepresenting the truth.

What's wrong with the Minnesota center against violence and sexual abuse? I'm searching right now again in the justice department of the US for other statistics, but if you have a problem with the source you have to address that.

Unreported rapes, or rapes ignored, those are still rapes in reality though not paper.
Falsely reported rapes, those are still rapes on paper, though not in reality.

Logic holds that in arguments such as these we need to take those factors into account.

Still, your arguments are faulty and you're creating your own reality. I won't argue in your reality unless I'm allowed to make things up too.

Of course. But how many reported rapes are we talking about? Why are they being ignored or reported falsely?

Humans are the same species... what you think of as races are actually just subspecies of homo sapiens.

Yes, I know. But there are subspecies in nature too.

Anyways, my question stands. I'm searching the bureau of justice statistics right now and hopefully I'll find something on this shitty site.
EDIT: I've searched and searched, but I can't find any statistics on rapes by race..

How does a bad economical situation make someone rape? This is science fiction for me.

 

[Satya]

Racism is so 20th century.

Homophobia is where it is at now.

 

[Shai Gar]

fucking cream stick rodeo rider

 

[Satya]

fucking cream stick rodeo rider

Ahem, there is a one derailer per thread limit on this forum.

 

[Azure_Knight]

I wish the judicial system was based on justice and rehabilitation. I would never want to be involved in social justice for any amount of money or promises.

 

[vidrigjatte]

fucking cream stick rodeo rider

And that was the end of that, I assume?

 

[vidrigjatte]

And that was the end of that, I assume?

Very boring actually, I thought I finally found someone who was prepared to fight for his belief. Oh well.