3 ms·

Well, this is certainly an uphill battle.. As I said, I'm no statistician. I can't do science, and I can't do statistics. But that doesn't matter with regard t

Well, this is certainly an uphill battle.. As I said, I'm no statistician. I can't do science, and I can't do statistics. But that doesn't matter with regard to what I was pointing out. There's a very bad assumption here, which is that the "other foreigners" category contains only the 13 groups listed, and that membership in none of the others implies membership in the Somalis group. Assuming I'm not even pretending to "do statistics" (as a science), and that I'm not even trying to be "rigorous" about it, why is that a bad assumption? Why would it not be reasonable to assume that if a minority is not on that list, it's an insignificant one? Why would membership in none of the others not imply membership in the Somalis group? Again, there's no need to be rigorous here. It's actually common knowledge here in Finland that Somalis rape a lot of women, but I felt like I should point to some statistics instead of just making that claim right away. Otherwise a cold reception like this would have been guaranteed. It's common knowledge in Sweden too, by the way. In Germany, it's the Turks, and in the Netherlands, it's Moroccans. There are people who are aware of reality, and then there are Sheeple, and for whatever reason, the media here (and afaik, all over the countries affected by Muslim immigration) has been systematically covering up the fact that the perpetrators of lots of crimes are, in fact Somalis, and not Finns. Whenever there's news of a gang-rape, they always say it's was a bunch of "younglings" (="nuorukaiset" in Finnish, "ungdomar" in Swedish, "youth" in English news). Without any mention of the ethnicity, the reader will just assume it was locals who did it. Actually, I'm surprised they even publish statistics like those I pointed to. Seriously. How rare is gang-rape among Western men? It's pretty fucking rare. But there have been lots of incidents in Finland in the past years. Does it make sense to assume that Finns have suddenly gotten all gang-rapey? In other news, there are 100 cars in the parking lot outside. There are 2 Toyotas, 3 Hondas, and 95 "other" cars. Clearly these 95 cars are Fords. Well, if we know that those 100 cars consist of Toyotas, Hondas, and Fords, and that 2 are Toyotas and 3 are Hondas, what does that leave us with for the 95 "Others"? You can't do this with stats and still claim to remain impartial, or correct. Again, I never claimed to be rigorous with my stats. That's just an assumption by you. The moment the words "probably" and "let's be generous" come out of your mouth re: statistics, your numbers have lost almost all meaning. When you're trying to justify incredibly racist views, back of the napkin calculations do not cut it. Again, not rigorous. Besides, there was no need to be rigorous. The conclusion is very clear even with a large error margin. Even 110 to 3 is a massive difference, but as I pointed out, it's reasonable to assume that the smallest minorities don't actually count for 3 rapes each, but less. I rarely accuse people directly on these forums. You sir, are racist. For the sake of all of us, please re-evaluate your views. I can see how you'd reach that conclusion, especially since it was what you wanted to conclude all along. But really, Europe does have a Muslim immigration problem. There's no problem with Chinese immigrants, or Western ones, or anyone who comes in and adapts and doesn't cause trouble. But there sure as hell is a problem with Somalis, in both Finland and Sweden. We're all brainwashed by our Western cultures in to viewing the world through rose-colored glasses, but that's not what reality is like. There are differences between races and cultures.

potatolicious 14y ago
> "As I said, I'm no statistician. I can't do science, and I can't do statistics. But that doesn't matter with regard to what I was pointing out." It absolutely does. If you do not have the (sound, defensible) numbers to point it out, what you have are personal anecdotes, not evidence. So in other words, you believe Somalis rape 34x more than the general population, but you don't actually have proof of it. The fact that you would readily believe that one group rapes a whole 34x more than another group, without skepticism or wanting to verify the facts, reveals a great deal about what you wish to believe. I highly recommend reading up on statistics, and looking at more stats in general (and not just in relation to crime). When you see a stat like "group A commits crime THIRTY FOUR TIMES more than group B", your skepticism alarm needs to go off. It isn't impossible, but it's also so unlikely demographics-wise that it bears extreme skepticism and checking. For example, if you look at the very worst neighborhoods in the very worst cities of the US and compare their crime rates to the very best urban areas, the crime rate difference is usually not more than 4-5x. THIRTY FOUR times is such an extreme outlier that frankly I'm shocked you were not skeptical about it. > "Why would it not be reasonable to assume that if a minority is not on that list, it's an insignificant one?" Because insignificant numbers accumulate. How many "other" nationalities do you think there exists in your country? There are 130+ countries in existence right now - even if they each contribute very little to your rape statistics, that's a lot of accumulated crime. You cannot ignore variables unless you have very good reason to. No group can be claimed "insignificant" without reason, not if you want to be anywhere close to impartial and correct. What you need is the real breakdown of the "others" category, not an inferred one subject to your own biases. And here's a little riddle for you: if the stats here are organized by significance (see how significant contributing nationalities are separated out?), why aren't the Somalis separated out? You would think that a rate over 34x more than the general population, contributing to a huge portion of rapes in the country, would bear its own column, no? Your reasoning is specious. > "Why would membership in none of the others not imply membership in the Somalis group?" Okay. I've tried to remain civil, but your ignorance and lack of knowledge is so poisonous, and supports a view so vicious, that I cannot. NO. FOR THE LOVE OF FUCKING GOD READ A BOOK. Educate yourself before making stupid statements up like this. Do you really believe that in the entire country of Finland there are only thirteen non-Finnish nationalities represented? Here's a simpler example. There's a parking lot outside with 100 cars. 3 of them are Toyota, 2 of them are Honda, and 95 are "other". In the "other" category there are 5 Chryslers and 5 Fiats. What you are saying is that this means we have 85 Fords - even though nothing in the data suggests that my breakdown of the "others" is even remotely close to comprehensive - you've assumed that, and conveniently forget that there are more car brands in the world than Toyota, Honda, Chrysler, Fiat, and Ford. Do you start to understand? > "It's actually common knowledge here in Finland that Somalis rape a lot of women" Yet where is your proof? You have offered ZERO evidence. You would think that if Somalis really raped women at a rate OVER THIRTY TIMES the national average, that you can find some iota of evidence? You would think that this would appear as a distinct column in your stats - after all, it points out much smaller national groups! This is nothing more than your own prejudice and the prejudice of people who share your "common knowledge". > "It's common knowledge in Sweden too, by the way. In Germany, it's the Turks, and in the Netherlands, it's Moroccans." This is depressing. You are so blatantly racist but somehow you don't see it for yourself. What's next. It's common knowledge in Germany too, it's actually the Jews? This sort of "common knowledge" that can't seem to be backed up by fact (and what you offered is so far from fact I'm not sure what to say) is the most blatant, vicious form of racism. This casual belief that "well of COURSE group A rapes 34x more than everyone else, everyone knows that", yet with no evidence of it. The willingness to believe shocking, mind-boggling things without seeking the slightest shred of proof! This whole conversation is sickening. > "There are people who are aware of reality, and then there are Sheeple" Ahh, I see how this works now. You've chosen to believe something so outrageous that it staggers belief, with no proof whatsoever. The only way you can defend this position is if you convince yourself anyone who disagrees is controlled by the government/media and are "sheeple". You sir, are the worst kind of racist. > "Without any mention of the ethnicity, the reader will just assume it was locals who did it." And you will assume it's Somalis, right? Do you see what you just did yourself? > "Again, I never claimed to be rigorous with my stats. That's just an assumption by you." THEN YOU HAVE NO PROOF OR EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. What you are saying: "I'm completely making up these numbers to support my world view, I've never claimed these numbers are correct. BUT LOOK AT THEM, THEY REVEAL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE SOMALIS" So here's what you really must own up to: your beliefs are your own but they are not supported by evidence or reason. You are entitled to your beliefs, however wrong and racist they may be, but do not claim to have evidence for it unless you actually do. I came into this reply thinking maybe I had you wrong, maybe this is just a gross miscommunication and exercise in statistical awfulness. But no, you are far more racist than I even suspected. For the love of God I hope we never meet. Sweet merciful [insert all deities here]... You've just completely ruined my morning. You are by far the most racist person I've ever conversed with, and I've seen some racist shit on this side of the ocean. The fact that people like you exist makes me depressed.

potatolicious 14y ago

> "As I said, I'm no statistician. I can't do science, and I can't do statistics. But that doesn't matter with regard to what I was pointing out." It absolutely does. If you do not have the (sound, defensible) numbers to point it out, what you have are personal anecdotes, not evidence. So in other words, you believe Somalis rape 34x more than the general population, but you don't actually have proof of it. The fact that you would readily believe that one group rapes a whole 34x more than another group, without skepticism or wanting to verify the facts, reveals a great deal about what you wish to believe. I highly recommend reading up on statistics, and looking at more stats in general (and not just in relation to crime). When you see a stat like "group A commits crime THIRTY FOUR TIMES more than group B", your skepticism alarm needs to go off. It isn't impossible, but it's also so unlikely demographics-wise that it bears extreme skepticism and checking. For example, if you look at the very worst neighborhoods in the very worst cities of the US and compare their crime rates to the very best urban areas, the crime rate difference is usually not more than 4-5x. THIRTY FOUR times is such an extreme outlier that frankly I'm shocked you were not skeptical about it. > "Why would it not be reasonable to assume that if a minority is not on that list, it's an insignificant one?" Because insignificant numbers accumulate. How many "other" nationalities do you think there exists in your country? There are 130+ countries in existence right now - even if they each contribute very little to your rape statistics, that's a lot of accumulated crime. You cannot ignore variables unless you have very good reason to. No group can be claimed "insignificant" without reason, not if you want to be anywhere close to impartial and correct. What you need is the real breakdown of the "others" category, not an inferred one subject to your own biases. And here's a little riddle for you: if the stats here are organized by significance (see how significant contributing nationalities are separated out?), why aren't the Somalis separated out? You would think that a rate over 34x more than the general population, contributing to a huge portion of rapes in the country, would bear its own column, no? Your reasoning is specious. > "Why would membership in none of the others not imply membership in the Somalis group?" Okay. I've tried to remain civil, but your ignorance and lack of knowledge is so poisonous, and supports a view so vicious, that I cannot. NO. FOR THE LOVE OF FUCKING GOD READ A BOOK. Educate yourself before making stupid statements up like this. Do you really believe that in the entire country of Finland there are only thirteen non-Finnish nationalities represented? Here's a simpler example. There's a parking lot outside with 100 cars. 3 of them are Toyota, 2 of them are Honda, and 95 are "other". In the "other" category there are 5 Chryslers and 5 Fiats. What you are saying is that this means we have 85 Fords - even though nothing in the data suggests that my breakdown of the "others" is even remotely close to comprehensive - you've assumed that, and conveniently forget that there are more car brands in the world than Toyota, Honda, Chrysler, Fiat, and Ford. Do you start to understand? > "It's actually common knowledge here in Finland that Somalis rape a lot of women" Yet where is your proof? You have offered ZERO evidence. You would think that if Somalis really raped women at a rate OVER THIRTY TIMES the national average, that you can find some iota of evidence? You would think that this would appear as a distinct column in your stats - after all, it points out much smaller national groups! This is nothing more than your own prejudice and the prejudice of people who share your "common knowledge". > "It's common knowledge in Sweden too, by the way. In Germany, it's the Turks, and in the Netherlands, it's Moroccans." This is depressing. You are so blatantly racist but somehow you don't see it for yourself. What's next. It's common knowledge in Germany too, it's actually the Jews? This sort of "common knowledge" that can't seem to be backed up by fact (and what you offered is so far from fact I'm not sure what to say) is the most blatant, vicious form of racism. This casual belief that "well of COURSE group A rapes 34x more than everyone else, everyone knows that", yet with no evidence of it. The willingness to believe shocking, mind-boggling things without seeking the slightest shred of proof! This whole conversation is sickening. > "There are people who are aware of reality, and then there are Sheeple" Ahh, I see how this works now. You've chosen to believe something so outrageous that it staggers belief, with no proof whatsoever. The only way you can defend this position is if you convince yourself anyone who disagrees is controlled by the government/media and are "sheeple". You sir, are the worst kind of racist. > "Without any mention of the ethnicity, the reader will just assume it was locals who did it." And you will assume it's Somalis, right? Do you see what you just did yourself? > "Again, I never claimed to be rigorous with my stats. That's just an assumption by you." THEN YOU HAVE NO PROOF OR EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. What you are saying: "I'm completely making up these numbers to support my world view, I've never claimed these numbers are correct. BUT LOOK AT THEM, THEY REVEAL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE SOMALIS" So here's what you really must own up to: your beliefs are your own but they are not supported by evidence or reason. You are entitled to your beliefs, however wrong and racist they may be, but do not claim to have evidence for it unless you actually do. I came into this reply thinking maybe I had you wrong, maybe this is just a gross miscommunication and exercise in statistical awfulness. But no, you are far more racist than I even suspected. For the love of God I hope we never meet. Sweet merciful [insert all deities here]... You've just completely ruined my morning. You are by far the most racist person I've ever conversed with, and I've seen some racist shit on this side of the ocean. The fact that people like you exist makes me depressed.