Printable View
Yeah.... About norwegian rape statistics, there's something you should know:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Last year, there was a "rape-wave" in Oslo. The outcry was enormous, it was unsafe for women to walk in the streets at night, etc etc.
The number of rapes? I think it was 5 total in 1-2 months. In a city with 500.000 inhabitants.
300% increase in Bergen would probably mean an increase from 1 rape to 3 rapes a year... Or that "The Pocket Man" has added a few more cases.
Does it really matter if a pakistani murderer kills a pakistani instead of a brit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaidonni
He has murdered once, therefore he is dangerous. Where you see a murdered Pakistani, I see a murdered person. Can't we have common sense and stop giving in to criminals?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
So yes, it does matter. A murderer is a murderer, and I don't blindly forgive. I don't excuse people for their actions. People must be punished for their crimes. I'm so fed up of the bleeding-heart brigade. We need to protect the public from criminals who pose threats. If someone has killed once, don't give them a second chance. Keep tabs on them, control them. And revoke the priviledge to live in another country - a country must take responsibility for the criminals native to it's system, not shirk it and pass it off on to someone else.
How you can downplay murder so easily...and decide to let all sorts into the country...
One word: common sense. Two words, actually. People do things cock-eyed, and then try to jump ship and shift the blame when they screw up.
We need proper controls, and not to bow to criminals. Like I said, a country is responsible for the criminals native to its borders. It is irresponsible to shirk this and pass it off to another country. If a murderer is native to England, he/she must remain the responsibility of the English authorities. Likewise, a Pakistani murderer must remain the responsibility of Pakistani authorities in Pakistan. People can not be allowed to simply come and go as they please. Like I said, again, common sense is needed.
Well there is always disease and war to reduce the population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaidonni
Then again how about them Chinese, how has their population control policy worked out?
Oh by the way I am all for immigrantion controls that allow people to come to another land to search for employment and a better life. If they prove themselves unworthy of that fresh start then they suffer the consequences of their new action, but nothing wrong with allowing someone a fresh start.
Your beginning to sound like the radicals here in the United States that think we can fence up the Mexican border and the Canadian border to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing over.
Eh...I was thinking of something a bit less panicky than drowning new-born girls or abandoning them on the side of the street. Something more carefully worked out and not too cruel...Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Although, now that you mention it, all those nuclear warheads are going unused. Building up cob-webs. What a waste of money...it'd be a shame to let them rot there, in a dark missile silo, all alone, bored...:smash:
PS: First target would be the UN. Then we wouldn't get told off. :laugh4:
Oh the Chinese were not panicky about doing that - it was very delibrate. You might want to check into their policy about inforcing the one child rule?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaidonni
No matter how you slice it - strict population control will have a fundmental cruel aspect to it.
That would mean a strike on New York City - hmm interesting possiblity for the three nations that have intercontential ballastic missiles and the few others that have those weapons? Not a very well though out plan you have there.Quote:
Although, now that you mention it, all those nuclear warheads are going unused. Building up cob-webs. What a waste of money...it'd be a shame to let them rot there, in a dark missile silo, all alone, bored...:smash:
PS: First target would be the UN. Then we wouldn't get told off. :laugh4:
Oh, I know it was deliberate. Just that, when it comes to the drowning and the abandoning, I'd say they'd need to go back to the drawing board...Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Sure, there will always be cruel aspects to population control. Gotta be cruel to be kind. But I like the idea it can be planned in a certain way that would cut out certain cruelties, limit the cruelty...there are more ways than one to crack an egg.
Oh, and that other plan...yeah...we might need to arrange tea and crumpets over a meeting to sort out the kinks. ;)
You missed my point completely. My statement was short though, so I'll take the blame for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaidonni
Let's a pakistani murders another pakistani, then spends time in jail. After he's released, let's say he wants to murder someone else. In that situation, does it really matter if he's in pakistan and kills a pakistani, or if he's in London and kills a brit? That is, of course, assuming that he will murder again, most murderers are one-off affairs, serial killers are very rare.
You say that a murderer should remain under state control after he has been released. What happened to rehabilitation? Are people not considered free men after they're released from prison anymore? Let's say our pakistani who had killed someone is released from jail after 20 years, and is deemed by the criminal care to pose no threat to society. Why shouldn't he have the freedom to choose where he wants to live? Hasn't he paid his debt to society? Can't people change? Once a crook, always a crook?
EDIT: Edited this, because I get riled up sometimes, and then I feel bad...that and I don't want to ruin the debate going on. Sorry to anyone who read the earlier versions of this post. Oh, and I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything when I use inverted commas around certain parts (sorry if it seemed like that, wasn't my intention).Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I don't believe in freedom. We have priviledges, but not freedoms. Without responsibility, freedom is worthless. I often see freedom as a byword for doing whatever one wants with little consideration of certain consequences. Maybe it's just a word, and those things are treated as priviledges by society at large anyway, but you know me, I get fussy when it comes to wording (I'm a perfectionist).
I do not believe that burglary (sp?) is as serious as murder. Burglary usually involves inanimate objects, no matter how sentimental or irreplaceable. At least no one is killed. But murder? There must be a stigma attached to it for the rest of one's life. There must be things the individual is no longer even allowed the priviledge of, yet alone freedom, even if they have 'paid their debt to society.'
If anyone read a previous iteration of this post, I was being overly harsh and angry. But I will still take the stance that, even if the purpose of a prison is rehabilitation and not revenge (revenge can destroy people afterall, and forgiveness is said to be for the victims, not the criminal, and we all want the victims to find peace), there must be a lasting punishment. Something that reminds the murderer that they have taken another person's life, and for that, they can't simply do some time, claim they're a better person, and go on living like nothing has happened.
And yes, let's say the murderer commits another murder. Now, I'm not saying that it's any better that they kill a Pakistani than a Brit, but should they be allowed to move to another country, that is moving the responsibility to keep tabs on them to that other country. If the murderer committed the second crime in his own country, at least the fault would lie with their authorities for not having been careful enough about rehabilitating the criminal. Why should we, afterall, have to deal with their criminals? Why should we have to suffer the failures of their prison system? Likewise, we'd have no right to inflict the same upon them.
So, it is ideal to keep tabs on the murderer because of the seriousness of the offense. Maybe not put them in jail for the rest of their natural lives, but definitely not be too soft on them either. So, even if they've done their time, there need to be limitations to what they can do with their newfound 'freedom' for the rest of their lives. They were a threat once, and we should not forget that. Decent people who have little evil in themselves can do terrible things, shaking our views of them - and if terrible people can become decent, what is really stopping them from becoming terrible once again? Vigilance is what I'm suggesting. You can have your rehabilitation, you can have your guy released if he has deemed to have paid any debt to society, but let us have some rules and regulations on how they behave.
I'd liken it to grounding someone for lying to their parents. Eventually, they are no longer grounded. But they still have rules to follow, especially in light of what they did.
It is not too much to ask to keep tabs on those who have committed such serious crimes, and to limit them in certain areas. If I recall correctly, for example, in the UK, murderers aren't allowed to apply to be doctors or nurses, are they? Or something like that, anyway?
NiceQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
keep it up, but you won't
Australia (like all the countries dominated by a white population where there originally was none) is one odd example of what immigration can cause. Of course, there are too many differencies to compare European colonization of Australia with immigration of "non-Westerners" into Western Europe, but it's still a good example of what happens when an indigenous culture is faced by a foreign one. The clash is inevitable; it mustn't necessary be as dramatical (and bloody) as it was in Australia, but it gives a hint. The same goes for everything really, no matter what you do, there will always be differencies for people to fight about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
To be completely honest; that, by definition, is racism. Just assuming that a certain kind of people can, while another can't, master a certain area of cooking, is bigoted. Everyone can follow a recipe, and to excel in the cooking of a certain dish only requires some practice, it's not like turks and arabs are genetically programmed to be awesome at making kebab.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Exactly what do you mean by that? Are you suggesting that because you found some oil, you had to drill it? What gives? Sure, multinational companies would've bought the findings from "you" sooner or later, but you can't possibly mean that immigration was a way for Norway to save itself from the burden of oil drilling.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
http://sensualjesus.files.wordpress....braveheart.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Kaidonni
I think Mr. Gibson disagrees with you...
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
No, but the employees at this place are. Which is the only place I buy my bab, because it's been tested and tried that everyone else blow at it. Especially in the north. I think the bab-gene stops functioning above Trondheim or something...Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
Seriously, while they're not inherently better at it, they are better at it in practice. The reason? There are no bab-shops run by norwegians! All of them, without exception, are run by pakistani's, turks, etc etc. The norwegians who offer bab don't run bab-shops, they mostly run hamburger shops and just offer babs as an additional dish, and as such they don't put so much effort into that area. They have a wide range of stuff to offer to customers. The bab shops often make other things too, but they live on the bab, and if they stopped focusing so much on them, they'd lose costumers, as most of them come there solely for the bab.
No. Finding the oil made our economy boom. A booming economy creates a lot of new jobs. To keep the boom going, those jobs need to be filled, or else things will slow down/not boom as much as it could've. A labour shortage is a luxury problem, but it's still a problem. And the best solution is immigration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
Incorrect - You have lots of freedoms depending upon where you live in the world. Some places actually have very limited freedoms - say China for examble but even there, they have some freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaidonni
You are right about one think though - many take what freedom they have for granted, refusing to accept the responsiblity that comes with that freedom. That however does not make it a priviledge, just a wasted freedom that will soon disappear because the people no longer desire it.
For examble driving a car is a priviledge.
Being able to say what you believe when it does not make a direct threat to another is a freedom.
The people guarntee there freedoms by their actions.
I understand your reasoning and don't have much to add. It was "slightly" off topic anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Yes, I am all for "labour immigration" (couldn't find an English word for it, Arbetskraftinvandring in Swedish and Arbeidsinnvandring in Norwegian), which was a custom practised by most European countries after WWII until somewhere in the 60-ies where the reckless immigration of today began. Immigration to fill the holes created by differencies between supply and demand factors is very efficient economic-wise, but allowing immigration for the sake of sheer humanity (a concept which I despise, BTW) is in no way benefital for the country, let alone the economy of said country, recieving these immigrants.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
This is often the same as the first type of immigrantion that you think is beneficial to said nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
Immigration serves both sides of the migration - the economy and society of the new nation, and the economy of the immigrant. If it does not do this the immigration is doomed to failure and the associated increase in crime because man will want to survive.
Either way way too complicated to let politicians handle it.
One of the most laughable aspects of our immigration policy is just that. It works like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
1. Immigrant arrives in our country.
2. Immigrant applies for asylum.
3. Immigrant gets shipped off to an "asylmottak"(not sure how to translate, sort of a transit-station).
4. Asylum application gets "worked on" for a few years.
5. Immigrant either accepted or rejected.
While he's spending those years in the "transit-station", he's not allowed to work or make money in any way. He gets a small amount from the government, but that's it. Since humans generally want to improve their situation, that leads to said immigrant working somewhere illegally. Since employers who hire such people illegally generally are crooks in other areas too, that leaves the door open for a glorious life of crime...
Instead of doing the sensible thing, which would be to put them on a fast-track education course and get them educated and working ASAP.
For example, we lack some 4000 trailer drivers alone(in addition to other fields in the transportation sector). A lot of immigrants worked as drivers in their home countries. The obvious solution would then be to teach them norwegian and how to drive in norway, and put them to work wuickly. Should be possible within 6-12 months.
But oh noes, can't do that, that would be sensible to our economy and also ruin our pure Aryan genes... Damn right-wingers.
Ok and after that?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Take a look at your mouse: at the front, you have two buttons, and between those buttons you see a wheel. Put your finger on top of it, and move your finger towards the back of the mouse, making sure that the wheel turns. If done correctly, you should now see more of the web page(which is the name of what you're looking at), allowing you to continue reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Heh...seems, from what people have said, I have mixed up freedoms and priviledges. Well, I guess there is a differentiation between what is exactly a freedom and priviledge.
Of course, that still doesn't stop people from abusing their freedoms, and refusing responsibility (as others have mentioned). I think it's down to what some people's concept of 'freedom' is, and that they just don't have any manners.
What I meant, though, was that I don't see freedoms as freedoms entirely, I still see them as priviledges in a way. People have fought and died for those things, so it's not like they come free of charge, and so should be revoked if necessary. I don't know...it just gets to me when people throw out 'it's my freedom of [insert whatever you want here]' in the hopes they can win an argument. It's like, just because it's a freedom, it's a carte blanche to go, do and say as they please.
Sorry if I riled up anyone before, of course. I suppose I'd rather think of freedoms as priviledges because of the times when people abuse them and try to shirk responsibility. Oh well...back to the main topic, I don't want to pull it off topic or anything.
The most used debating technique in the backroom... Actually, I'd say it's the most used technique everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaidonni
See the cartoon thread for another one; turning the thread into a book-discussion. That one worked wonders too.
Yeah, books are boring eh? :coffeenews:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Haha, I editted that bit out of my post. :laugh4:
Has it worked yet? You still alive? Oh darn it, time for plan B... *readies the Purification Squads* :beam:
Well, it did kill off any discussion of the original topic...Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
I know, I know, books are killers.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Books don't kill people, people kill people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
:book:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
You know, if Britain closed it's borders the population would probably stop rising.
Whoops. Hate being late to the party. :blush: