Sweden 2012

[Montmorency]

The loyalists were right in the American revolution. But you'll never hear about it from either party. And the libertarians especially love the patriots--that anti-tax fanaticism is right up their alley. 100,000 dead and 60,000 forced refugees, when we could have just stayed British until we naturally separated. There was no "design to reduce us under absolute despotism". And perhaps under the British we would have solved our slavery problem without another 600,000 dead.

The revolutionaries weren't, for the most part, fanatics.

Nationalists, communists, and fascists are all fanatical too remember.

Not necessarily.

Most civilizations had to make the emperor a god (fanaticism again) in order to give him real power.

Isn't it that emperors called themselves gods - or claimed divine backing - to justify power?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The revolutionaries weren't, for the most part, fanatics.

Define fanatic?

They were pretty crazy.

Isn't it that emperors called themselves gods - or claimed divine backing - to justify power?

Most people believed in it, powerfully. It wasn't a pragmatic scheme by the emperors if that's what you were getting at.

@Sasaki: You sure about that? The British were pretty harsh on the colonists. We couldn't even log our own timber properly, because every good tree was owed to the British fleet. What do you think would have happened to the American colonies during the Napoleonic wars if we still had to answer to the British?

Well, as I said I can't truly argue all this historical stuff in depth.

We sold them lots of ships which was great for our shipbuilding industry, that's what I remember. There weren't really harsh restrictions, and they British were very reasonable about negotiating. It's not reasonable to start a war over logging.

If the french had still possessed quebec the napoleonic wars might have been bad, but the british saved us from that threat earlier, you know, in the very costly war that we whined about helping to pay off the debt for, even though our taxes were still extremely low.

On the whole though, I agree with you. You never want to give control to a group of fanatics, because they won't properly represent a majority of the interests. I was just pointing out that by writing off fringe viewpoints entirely you create a static system that is prone to abuse.

I think we can have large disagreements and productive arguments without people taking a quasi-religious attitude towards their political principles and beliefs. Like I said, there are large differences between Romney and Obama.

[Montmorency]

Define fanatic?

They weren't all like Patrick Henry or Thomas Paine.

Most people believed in it, powerfully. It wasn't a pragmatic scheme by the emperors if that's what you were getting at.

I doubt it wasn't at all one. But my point was that the power came before any elaborate justification, and that the subjects did not invent an attribution of divinity to justify their own servitude.

I think we can have large disagreements and productive arguments without people taking a quasi-religious attitude towards their political principles and beliefs.

What if one's political beliefs demand it? Would you say that such beliefs are probably misguided?

Like I said, there are large differences between Romney and Obama.

I thought you said neither are fanatics.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

They weren't all like Patrick Henry or Thomas Paine.

Without those types, it wouldn't have started. The boston mob, the newspaper propagandists, the rabble rousers, the radical ideology that sprung up all over. edit: when one of the loyalists died they followed his funeral procession around town jeering at the family.

Other people joined it once the ball had started rolling.

I doubt it wasn't at all one. But my point was that the power came before any elaborate justification, and that the subjects did not invent an attribution of divinity to justify their own servitude.

Did it? I thought it was more usual for there to be lots of fragmented chiefdoms. And women could often rule based on their being seen as part divine. But I don't know much of this part of history and I'm not sure how we started here.

What if one's political beliefs demand it? Would you say that such beliefs are probably misguided?

How could reasonable political beliefs demand fanatical political beliefs?

I thought you said neither are fanatics.

Yes

[Montmorency]

Other people joined it once the ball had started rolling.

There you go.

Did it? I thought it was more usual for there to be lots of fragmented chiefdoms.

Do we have a means of discovering what prehistoric peoples thought of their leaders? Not necessarily restricted to these, however...

How could reasonable political beliefs demand fanatical political beliefs?

Perhaps one shouldn't compromise over absolute truth. Whether it sounds reasonable or not may turn out to have no bearing on the validity.

The Revolutionary War was totally justified from a self-determination standpoint

Even geographically disparate minorities have a right to self-determination?

[HoreTore]

EDIT: Why are you chuckling at 50% of rapes being committed by immigrants?

Because with Norvegian numbers(Sweden is mostly the same, adjusted for pop size), 50% equals 40 people. 80 people are convicted of rape, so that stat comes from those 80 people. When the estimated number of annual rapes are between 8000 to 16000, you don't have a single ststistical leg to stand on. Generalising findings based on a non-random 80/16000 gives you an F in statistics.

[HoreTore]

Not replying to anyone in particular now, just thought I'dd add to my previous argument on reliable stats(this is in a Norwegian context, mind):

Murder is IMO by far the best one. However, it's not alone at the top. Two hypothetical stats and two real stats are also good. In no particular order:

1. Robbery of a place of business during opening hours. Hypotethical stat, this one files under the larger stat "robberies" and "armed robbery", which also includes much else. If we had that number, however, it would be useful. It's hard and uncommon to fake a robbery in broad daylight or make up such a story, and if you do get robbed, you're definitely going to report it. Insurance,health and safety regulations, etc all make it unheard of not to report such a robbery. There's a catch here though: stores continually implement measures designed to reduce the likelyhood of a robbery(like closed cash systems), a reduction or increase could be a result of such measures. The robbery stat is likely to Correlate closely with the number of actual robberies taking place.

2. Robberies of large businesses outside opening hours. Hypothetical, since the actual stat doesn't distinguish between different kinds of businesses. Insurance fraud is an issue here, and that's most commonly found in smaller businesses than large ones, and for franchises. If you could isolate the "honest businesses", you would get a reliable stat. Smaller robberies might also go unnoticed.

3. The "svinn"-stat(don't know how to translate, it's the amount of goods in a store unaccounted for/thrown away) of businesses. Real stat, but not disclosed to the public. Unaccounted goods result from a variety of factors, like too high orders, mishaps, lower than expected sales, promotion of a particular good, and so on. These factors have nothing to do with crime. But it's also affected by theft, from both employees and "customers". All larger stores have routines developed enough to distinguish the different factors and are able to isolate what is due to theft. An increase in theft can indicate an increase in general crime.

4. Assault on police officers. Real stat. If a police officer is assaulted, it will likely be reported. An increase in attacks likely indicates a harsher enviroment, which in turn indicates an increase in general crime. It's reliability for this is dependent on police methods and classification, however.

[Kival]

In rape you are third as a percentage of population and tied with Finland for that ranking. 1.1% of the Swedish population are rape victims. Considering that it is almost all females that makes it even a higher likelihood of being raped. That is about 104500 victims.

This comparison doesn't work. a) Swedish law on rape is different (more rigid), b) Sweden is known to have a higher report rate of rape than other countries.

BTW HoreTore is mostly right, Criminology doesn't trust in general crime statistics much. For international comparisons, specific crimes with similar report quote and solve quote are best used.

Yeah, they hide it. Up to and including to comical levels... Swedes still have the VIEW of their own nation from the 70's... I still hear Swedes talking about how "we" have the best wellfare system in the world, while in fact several countries has run us by long since.

Care to elaborate? Despite some small changes Sweden is still the ideal type of the socialdemocratic welfare states in social research.

EDIT: Some minor orthographie corrections...

[Fragony]

Care to elaborate? Desite some small changes Sweden is still the ideal type of the socialdemocratic welfare types in social research.

Because pipesmoking sandals-wearing socio-whatever or whatever isn't directly the female protection program it furiously screams it is. It isn't, you are less likely to get raped in a township in South-Africa or any African country in general. Nowhere in the civilized world are females more likely to be dragged screaming towards tentacle rape than in Sweden. I am not just saying that because I want these Swedish girls to come to the Netherlands, only slightly.

Sweden, world leader in rape, keep voting leftist and keep absolutely adoring multiculture

[Kival]

That has nothing to do with my question. You also seem to completly ignore the discussion about the validity of rape statistic comparisons.

[Kadagar_AV]

HoreTore, the figures I find for 2011 say that Sweden had 6509 rapes last year, while you in Norway had 109.

Just because YOU don't have immigrant rape gangs, it doesn't mean we don't.

[Kival]

A non-academic source first: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19592372 - I'm not sure if anyone cares really but I can try to find a more thorough analyses by a social scientist. I can't remember his name at the moment, so I'd probably need some time to find it again.

[Sir Moody]

your missing the point Kadgar

Horetore and others have already pointed out that Sweden has a more encompassing law when it comes to rape (ie more crimes fall under rape than in most countries) - this means the figures are "inflated" by the other crimes

you would need to look at Norway's rape figures as though they had Sweden's laws to get a true comparison

[Kadagar_AV]

Sir Moody, I get their point, I just don't buy it.

The numbers correlates better with raised immigration from the Middle East and Africa, than any changes in procedure.

I heard the same thing in the 90's, and THAT's also when the big changes in procedure and willingness to report happened. The last ten years it hasn't happened much on this front. Yet the number of rapes keeps climbing up up up.

If you look solely on finished court cases where the offender was found guilty, you will find that immigrants/foreigners make up between 50-60% of the convicted.

You can of course explain this with a myriad of factors, or you can apply Ockham's Razor and state that immigrants rape more.

Shouldn't come as a shock that people from a culture thinking an unsupervised woman is up for grabs will commit more rapes than a person from a culture who believes women should never ever be forced.

To me it seems like a no-brainer.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

In the end it came down to self-determination. Do you support it? I do. And that's why I don't have a problem with the Revolutionary War. Think about what North America would look like if it had never happened. The Louisiana purchase surely would never had happened, the west coast would still belong to the Spanish, or Mexico, and surely the entire continent would have become a battleground between French, British, and Spanish colonial interests. The Revolutionary War was totally justified from a self-determination standpoint, especially when you consider that most of the colonists were here because they had been more or less forced out of the British Isles on religious or political grounds.

Why do you think that? Remember, texas became it's own state by people just moving there--it wasn't an official effort. They went to oregon as well when it was disputed territory. We would most likely have expanded just the same, or more with the backing of the British. I don't think anyone would have seriously been able to challenge us, it was pretty incredible that the British were even able to carry out the naval operations they did in the revolutionary war. Their navy ruled the waves anyway.

Our population would have equalled britain's by like 1850. We were growing much faster than them. He eventually got involved, but Benjamin Franklin thought that revolting was stupid because it was obvious that America would become independent with time.

But all that aside, the real losers were the Native Americans. They would probably have fared much better in the long run had the USA not become independent.

Quite possible.

I mean, I don't know how much good alternate history is, trying to figure out what would have happened etc. But if you look at the people of the time, read what they wrote and what they did, their actions are not respectable. "the ordeal of thomas hutchinson" is a great book on that subject, though the author (bernard bailyn) comes to conclusions more like yours.

Perhaps one shouldn't compromise over absolute truth. Whether it sounds reasonable or not may turn out to have no bearing on the validity.

We compromise over absolute truths every election. Approximately half the country accepts a candidate who they disagree with on what they consider an absolute truth.

I think all people have a right to self-determination and self-governance. According to Sasaki, that would probably be a fanatical position.

We had it to a large degree, and it was inevitable that we'd get more. Demanding it now, and in a pure form, is what's fanatical.

[HoreTore]

HoreTore, the figures I find for 2011 say that Sweden had 6509 rapes last year, while you in Norway had 109.

Just because YOU don't have immigrant rape gangs, it doesn't mean we don't.

Lol.

If that's the numbers you can find - perhaps you should consider getting better at finding facts first? 109 rapes in Norway.... If that's not enough to get your radar beeping I don't know what will. It should be obvious that's not even close. I'm guessing you found the assault rape stat, which I think is around 100 per year. There were 189 rapes reported in Oslo in 2010(and keep in mind that the norwegian rape stat exclude the pedo's, don't know if you swedes count that way). I don't have the exact national number in memory and can't be arsed to dig it up, but I believe it's somewhere around 12-1300. So, we're a little behind you guys, but that may just as well be the counting and reporting as the number of rapes. The estimated number of actual rapes ranges from 8000 to 16000. You could try looking up a feminist site or some org working with crisis centres, I'm sure you'll find the estimate range for Sweden there.

So.... Instead of discussing "dem rapin' somalistanis", perhaps we can help you understand how to deal with statistics and research first? Let's be honest, kadagar: you don't have much knowledge in this field. No shame in that though, very few have. Statistical analysis is without question the most misunderstood part of maths, even among those who are very good at number theory and such.

Oh, and the rape research is perfectly clear on one thing though; were you're most likely to get raped. And the winner is:

At home. Alone with me, an ethnic norwegian young male, and a glass of red. Can't remember atm if it's most dangerous at my place or the womans.

If I've had prior sexual relations with the woman, the chance of me getting prosecuted, let alone convicted, is minimal so long as I don't bruise her. The more sexually active she is, the safer it is for me.

I can basically do whatever I want, and I will get away with it.


I like telling that little bit at parties when the females attending are worrying about walking home alone from town and such.... Always a riot.

[Strike For The South]

Is it? Our nation is sharply divided on issues that are irreconcilable. There are only two logical ways forward: More Self-Determination, allowing reactionaries to their own way, progressives to their own way, and so forth; or a strong central government to force all of us disparate bastards to stick together. Which do you find more morally acceptable? Which do you find more practical? And now that you've asked yourselves those questions, is it okay to put the practical solution before the morally sound one?

These are things you should be thinking about. Self-Determination isn't something that just happens once and done, its a principle you have to stick to even if it takes you places you don't want to go.

No we're not. Idiots with an internet connection might think so but we are nowhere near irreconcilable, to comfortable for that.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"A report estimating the percentage of eligible voters who cast ballots in Tuesday's election shows the rate was lower than in the past two presidential contests, though it surpassed the rate from 2000.

Thursday's report, from the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, put 2012 voter turnout at 57.5% of all eligible voters, compared to 62.3% who voted in 2008 and 60.4% who cast ballots in 2004. In 2000, the turnout rate was 54.2%."

[Kadagar_AV]

HoreTore, hehe, I just wanted you to start looking at numbers :)

Let me explain it to you again, very slowly.

In reported rapes, immigrants stand for more than 50%.
Counting convicted rapists immigrants stand for between 50-60%.

An immigrant IS more likely to be a rapist than a Swede. Face it.

And yes indeed, the number of unreported rapes is probably big, and most rapes takes place at home.

But if you for ONE second think that a western man is MORE likely to rape someone they know at home, than an Arab / African patriarch, then I sincerely start to question your intellectual abilities.

Let us remember, as an example, that many Muslims think the woman have no RIGHT to even say no.

A man from a culture saying woman are not allowed to say no will probably be more likely to rape, than a western man. Would you NOT agree?

[Strike For The South]

If you say so. I've travelled all over these great states, and you will never reconcile the differences between, say, Alabama and Washington. Or Texas and Oregon. Or Lousiana and Maine. We are a large nation with distinct zones of culture and opinion, and as long those differences are in the realm of national policy, we will never break the deadlock. The federal government must become much stronger, or much weaker.

The idea of a split America has been debukned, at least in terms of regionalism.

The American war of independence can be broken down to 4 factors

Radical agitators (Paine, Henry Adams)
Yankee Businessmen (Hancock)
Virginia planters (Washington)
Opportunists (Franklin)

The radical agitators are always there
The Yankee buisnessmen were upset becuase of the taxes and the clamp down on illicit trade
The Virginia planters were upset because The Brits had closed off the land west of the Appalachians, land they had claimed
And the opportunists played the odds

Men like Adams and Washington were incridebly vain and it really rubbed them the wrong way that a Brit would always be elevated above them in terms of position.

It has nothing to do with self determination and everything to do with the normal human reasons every other decision on this planet happens

[Strike For The South]

"A report estimating the percentage of eligible voters who cast ballots in Tuesday's election shows the rate was lower than in the past two presidential contests, though it surpassed the rate from 2000.

Thursday's report, from the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, put 2012 voter turnout at 57.5% of all eligible voters, compared to 62.3% who voted in 2008 and 60.4% who cast ballots in 2004. In 2000, the turnout rate was 54.2%."

All this proves is there were not enough explosions

[Kival]

In reported rapes, immigrants stand for more than 50%.
Counting convicted rapists immigrants stand for between 50-60%.

Could you please give your source for that? It's not that I doubt the number (okay, I do, but that's not the point), but I'd like to get a look at that statistic myself, to know what we are exactly speaking about here.

An immigrant IS more likely to be a rapist than a Swede. Face it.

Maybe true but even if it's true, a correlation is not necessarily a causal relation.

But if you for ONE second think that a western man is MORE likely to rape someone they know at home, than an Arab / African patriarch, then I sincerely start to question your intellectual abilities.

Let us remember, as an example, that many Muslims think the woman have no RIGHT to even say no.

A man from a culture saying woman are not allowed to say no will probably be more likely to rape, than a western man. Would you NOT agree?

It is not as if this line of thought would be foreign to our western culture. Admittedly it is nowadays (!) more contested here and I might even agree that even after checking for spurious effects Muslims (let's be clear here, you obviously only mean Immigrants with atleast an islamic background) in Sweden are more likely to rape than non-Muslims, but I doubt very much that this is the strongest determinating factor.

What HoreTore implied but didn't state clearly is that the victims of rape by immigrants/muslims are probably immigrants/muslims, too! Even if you wouldn't let them in, this rapes wouldn't go away, they just would vanish out of sweden's statistics. The victims wouldn't be helped much by it at all. Probably it's actually the contrary and they have better chances in Sweden than they would have where they came from (there they might not even have the possibility to report the rape!).

[HoreTore]

HoreTore, hehe, I just wanted you to start looking at numbers :)

Let me explain it to you again, very slowly.

In reported rapes, immigrants stand for more than 50%.
Counting convicted rapists immigrants stand for between 50-60%.

An immigrant IS more likely to be a rapist than a Swede. Face it.

And yes indeed, the number of unreported rapes is probably big, and most rapes takes place at home.

But if you for ONE second think that a western man is MORE likely to rape someone they know at home, than an Arab / African patriarch, then I sincerely start to question your intellectual abilities.

Let us remember, as an example, that many Muslims think the woman have no RIGHT to even say no.

A man from a culture saying woman are not allowed to say no will probably be more likely to rape, than a western man. Would you NOT agree?

The only thing I will agree to is explain how research and statistics work

After that, we could move on to other things.

And no need to send me scrambling for numbers, I know them well enough that most are memorized(at least roughly).

[Kival]

You want to give a statistics course in the forum?

[HoreTore]

Could you please give your source for that? It's not that I doubt the number (okay, I do, but that's not the point), but I'd like to get a look at that statistic myself, to know what we are exactly speaking about here.



Maybe true but even if it's ture, a correlation is not necessarily a causal relation.

The 50-ish conviction percentage is in line with Norway. I find the 50 in reported rapes troublesome though, that's far from what it's like here. First thought is of course differences in reporting, second thought is that it applies to a specific form of rape, namely assault rapes. And you're spot on with your comment on correlation and causation, of course, like the rest of your post :twothumbsup:

[Kadagar_AV]

Could you please give your source for that? It's not that I doubt the number (okay, I do, but that's not the point), but I'd like to get a look at that statistic myself, to know what we are exactly speaking about here.



Maybe true but even if it's true, a correlation is not necessarily a causal relation.



It is not as if this line of thought would be foreign to our western culture. Admittedly it is nowadays (!) more contested here and I might even agree that even after checking for spurious effects Muslims (let's be clear here, you obviously only mean Immigrants with atleast an islamic background) in Sweden are more likely to rape than non-Muslims, but I doubt very much that this is the strongest determinating factor.

What HoreTore implied but didn't state clearly is that the victims of rape by immigrants/muslims are probably immigrants/muslims, too! Even if you wouldn't let them in, this rapes wouldn't go away, they just would vanish out of sweden's statistics. The victims wouldn't be helped much by it at all. Probably it's actually the contrary and they have better chances in Sweden than they would have where they came from (there they might not even have the possibility to report the rape!).

Brottslighet bland personer födda i Sverige och i utlandet, Brå-rapport 2005:17
Invandrare och invandrares barns brottslighet – en statistisk analys, Brå-rapport 1996:2
Brottsutvecklingen i Sverige fram till år 2007, Brå-rapport 2008:23
Diesen m.fl., Likhet inför lagen, Natur och Kultur 2005
Är rättvisan rättvis? Tio perspektiv på diskriminering av etniska och religiösa minoriteter inom rättssystemet, SOU 2006:30
Statistik om gruppvåldtäkter, Brå PM 2000/3

However, let me ASSURE you that the numbers themselves are correct. Even the most immigrant hugging hippie have been forced to accept that they are real, as you see they have taken the battle to trying to explain the numbers, not attack the numbers themselves.

If you look at assault rape, it seems like basically only Swedish girls are targeted, no wonder, Muslim girls are not out unsupervised.

About your last bit, I agree. That is why we should cut down on immigration, so we have money to help people in their actual countries. For the same money we spend housing 10 Somali women here, we could offer basic human rights (and more) to hundreds in Somalia. Food, water, schools, internet yadda yadda....

I am all for helping other nations instead of ruining MY nation.



HoreTore, Again, face it. The numbers are what they are, you can't just make stuff up to explain it. I dare you to logically explain why a WESTERN man would be as likely to rape as a man from a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY WITH BARBARIC VIEWS ON WOMEN.

As someone on these boards once brilliantly said: If you import people from the third world, you will have to be ready to also deal with third world problems.

Again, I am not saying it is "because they are black" or anything. They come from a culture who on these issues are where we were a millennium or so ago. But now I am repeating myself.

Holding your ears going "Lalala you dont know statistics" only makes you come off as having absolutely nothing to back you up.

So again, I dare you to explain what in the western culture would make a man as likely to rape as a guy from, say, the Somali culture. Heck, over there I am pretty damn sure there are no legislation saying you cant have sex with your wive(s) when you please.

You, my dear sir, have NOTHING.



EDIT: HoreTore, an immigrant is 5 times more likely to be accused of rape.

[Kival]

Here in english an summary of the bra- data:

http://bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/hom...-offences.html

I'll try to have a look at the other ones, if I can find them in english.

[Montmorency]

@Kadagar: 5 times, eh? The crux of it is this: how many hundreds of immigrants would you reject to prevent the rape of one blonde Swedish girl? How many would you let in to ameliorate the rape of one immigrant girl?

We compromise over absolute truths every election. Approximately half the country accepts a candidate who they disagree with on what they consider an absolute truth.

Then they aren't very strongly held beliefs, or are formulated with internal leeway.

Let me concretize it: What would you expect the reaction to be on the part of an individual who believes the invasion of Iran and the destruction of as much infrastructure and life within it is a matter - a personal matter - of Heaven and Hell, to the election of a candidate he believes, rightly or wrongly, to be friendly to Iran?

The end-times...

[Fragony]

Got to love leftist logic. Where did he even hint at making such an equation. Leftist people hate facts that don't comfirm their worldview that much is obvious.

Leftist people should watch 'la femme de rue', if they can see it, there is a deeper problem here. Gives a nice impression of what a women's is like in area's that have been enriched with people who have culture. Constant harassment.

[Kadagar_AV]

Monty, huh?

Now that's a rubbish argument. I want sustainable solutions to make the world a better place.

I can easily moralize back at you: Why do YOU think it is more important to let ten Somalis in, then it is to help hundreds of Somalis build a working life in, or close to, their home region and culture?

Get off your high horse.

I don't see how making Sweden a poorer and more criminal place, where people no longer trust the social contract and their fellow citizen... In the long run will lead to anything positive for the world at large?

Nah, much better we keep Sweden healthy, so we can act to create sustainable solutions for other countries too.