Fucking gypsies
-
Is it racist to point out that the majority of muggings in the UK are carried out by blacks? Of course it is racist to prejudge someone, but prejudice abounds in all forms. I have been the victim of it myself because of the way I speak. Where I live is it true that gypsy kids are not given the same kind of treatment as non gypsy kids if their parents take them out of school however beyond that I wouldnt call them unwashed criminals.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Is it racist to point out that the majority of muggings in the UK are carried out by blacks?
Yes. Because it suggests cause and effect. There is no evidence that suggests that racial characteristics have any significance in anything. (Studies that claim otherwise have flaws and often serious ones.)
-
British Police are legally required to record the race of all people arrested or charged. Black and South Asians are over represented in criminal records. I know it doesn't accord with your 'Liberal' world view, but then it is just those inconvenient facts getting in the way.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
British Police are legally required to record the race of all people arrested or charged.
Black and South Asians are over represented in criminal records.
I know it doesn't accord with your 'Liberal' world view, but then it is just those inconvenient facts getting in the way.Are you suggesting when you use the word "fact" that there is a connection between race itself and criminal behavior? Are the police also required to record the yearly income of each person arrested? Are they required to record the trust levels for the legal system where each individual grew up? There are several areas for that including how the people of a neighborhood view the following: police response, investigation, arrest and prosecution?
-
So the police report the ethnicity of the offenders? Great, show me the stats. Or is that just the local news stirring up racial hatred to sell a few ads? I'm sure there is some truth to it but look around you and see the lives these people are living. It's not the colour of their skin. It's poverty.
"You get that on the big jobs."
Well, their skin is the same colour as everyone elses where I live, and they arent poor, they work and make as much as the average, but they are given special tratment when it comes to takilng their kids out of school. As for UK stats, 2.6 % of the population makes up 14% of the prision population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_Kingdom[^]
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
British Police are legally required to record the race of all people arrested or charged.
Black and South Asians are over represented in criminal records.
I know it doesn't accord with your 'Liberal' world view, but then it is just those inconvenient facts getting in the way.Are you suggesting when you use the word "fact" that there is a connection between race itself and criminal behavior? Are the police also required to record the yearly income of each person arrested? Are they required to record the trust levels for the legal system where each individual grew up? There are several areas for that including how the people of a neighborhood view the following: police response, investigation, arrest and prosecution?
-
Comparing black and gypsies is not correct IMO. The blacks are people, the gypsies not entirely(at least not from our point of view and moral system), see my post below. And if I recall correctly from the pictures from the riots in UK, not all of the rioters were black, in fact only half of them was black?
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
30% of victims of gun crime in the UK are black, despite making up only 2.8% of the population.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London[^] 55% of court appearances for armed robbery are black http://digitaljournal.com/article/312487[^] Yes, most of the rest are white, so you will see plenty of white faces in the riots. But given blacks make up only 2.8% of the population you have to wonder why they figure so highly in the crime figures.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Is it racist to point out that the majority of muggings in the UK are carried out by blacks?
Yes. Because it suggests cause and effect. There is no evidence that suggests that racial characteristics have any significance in anything. (Studies that claim otherwise have flaws and often serious ones.)
-
Well I guess you'll never understand why some people hate Americans either. PS I'm not one of them
"You get that on the big jobs."
-
Because they are shameless. Thats why I dislike Americans. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
You don't like anyone so you don't count.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Sorry your profile suggests you are from the United States. I just assumed that was America. So what "United States" is that? EDIT: Sorry I misread your post and agree. Most Americans I've meet are friendly and the donation the country has made to science and living standards is without peer. I guess sometimes your government has acted in ways "racists" have used to brand all Americans.
"You get that on the big jobs."
RobCroll wrote:
. I guess sometimes your government has acted in ways "racists" have used to brand all Americans.
I'm pretty sure all governments can be seen to act in a racist manner if it suits some political purpose. Americans are no different than anyone else: they still have to take their pants off to poop. :-)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Oh really? Well here's the source ('Roma' angry at minister Leers of Immigration & Intergration)[^] Short translation: he wants to improve the integration of Roma (he's a PC guy ya know) by not having a different policy for Roma regarding eduction, healthcare, work and housing. Rather, they have to take their own responsibility, because they're no different from other Dutch citizens. Roma guy replies with: bull shit, we asking him to respect our culture and background, but we don't see that in his new policy. We fought hard for special treatment, but we're not getting it, so we're threatening to bawww to the european court for human rights. Leers replies with: well they don't write the law, we do, and they're not going to be any different from Dutch citizens. Honestly, how is the gypsy-position anything but completely unreasonable?
We get a similar attitude from some in the UK.
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Is it a case of race or culture?
First there are other possibilities of which economic is certain to be related. Second "culture" is probably too broad of a term since there can be "culture" groupings yet which other unmeasured factors have an impact. Third race has nothing to do with it.
-
jschell wrote:
there is a connection between race itself and criminal behavior?
The figures show that blacks make up a non representetively large percentage of prision population.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
The figures show that blacks make up a non representetively large percentage of prision population.
So? Are you unaware of the vast and long term attempts using a huge number of varying attributes to categorize not only criminal behavior but human behavior in general? All of which are almost (and perhaps total) failures? I am not even sure that there are even very small/limited categorizations which are successful. For example it is easy to diagnose Down's Syndrome but it does not then follow that one can then successfully predict the exact impact that it will have.
-
Please explain why you say that: I can't see where he is being overtly racist. I must be missing something.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
mark merrens wrote:
Please explain why you say that: I can't see where he is being overtly racist. I must be missing something.
Definition- racist: a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others. Corollary is that some race is inferior. Given the above definition then the following comes from the original statement. 1. Groups a set of people by a single attribute. 2. Denigrates that group (and the individuals of that group.) 3. Conclusion: They are inferior. Thus the statement is racist.
-
Oh really? Well here's the source ('Roma' angry at minister Leers of Immigration & Intergration)[^] Short translation: he wants to improve the integration of Roma (he's a PC guy ya know) by not having a different policy for Roma regarding eduction, healthcare, work and housing. Rather, they have to take their own responsibility, because they're no different from other Dutch citizens. Roma guy replies with: bull shit, we asking him to respect our culture and background, but we don't see that in his new policy. We fought hard for special treatment, but we're not getting it, so we're threatening to bawww to the european court for human rights. Leers replies with: well they don't write the law, we do, and they're not going to be any different from Dutch citizens. Honestly, how is the gypsy-position anything but completely unreasonable?
harold aptroot wrote:
Honestly, how is the gypsy-position anything but completely unreasonable?
Could be. However the last part of your OP is racist and has nothing to do with that. Other than that could you provide an example of any group anywhere that has previously had special treatment and which did not fight the removal of that special treatment? Matter of fact I suspect that fighting for continued special treatment is in fact reasonable given that that is what many if not all groups do. And it would be very odd, and thus probably "unreasonable" if they didn't in fact fight against it. Actually perhaps even a bit insane.
-
It is not racist, they are not a race. And political correctness is a cowards way of not dealing with a problem. They are a problem but people refuse to accept it for fear of upsetting the liberal left. I do not have a problem, I refute all political correctness and call it as I see it. If you do not like that then tough, but the world doesn't exist just to keep you happy. They are a dirty, unwanted bunch of criminal thieving bastards that have no interest in joining any society. You PC types are always going on about their rights, but what of ours?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
It is not racist, they are not a race.
Nonsense. There are any number of attributes used to group humans which are used then to denigrate the group and by association individuals in that group. And that has occurred throughout history: Jews, Irish, Japanese, Catholics, Harijans, homosexuals, mentally retarded, etc. Pick whatever word that you want for that negative action - and that is what the comment is.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Honestly, how is the gypsy-position anything but completely unreasonable?
Could be. However the last part of your OP is racist and has nothing to do with that. Other than that could you provide an example of any group anywhere that has previously had special treatment and which did not fight the removal of that special treatment? Matter of fact I suspect that fighting for continued special treatment is in fact reasonable given that that is what many if not all groups do. And it would be very odd, and thus probably "unreasonable" if they didn't in fact fight against it. Actually perhaps even a bit insane.
It can't be racist, they're not a race. It could be a discriminating generalization - maybe some of them do wash themselves? But who gives a shit. They're not just complaining or protesting. They're going way overboard with their threats and bawwing. At nearly every budget cut this year, the affected party has complained and protested. None* of them have threatened to step to the european court for human rights. Especially not over something that is essentially the opposite of discrimination. * The gypsies haven't either, because they did it in reaction to something that wasn't a budget cut.
-
mark merrens wrote:
Please explain why you say that: I can't see where he is being overtly racist. I must be missing something.
Definition- racist: a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others. Corollary is that some race is inferior. Given the above definition then the following comes from the original statement. 1. Groups a set of people by a single attribute. 2. Denigrates that group (and the individuals of that group.) 3. Conclusion: They are inferior. Thus the statement is racist.
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Is it a case of race or culture?
First there are other possibilities of which economic is certain to be related. Second "culture" is probably too broad of a term since there can be "culture" groupings yet which other unmeasured factors have an impact. Third race has nothing to do with it.
I agree nostly. I dont think ecconomics is related. Theives, muggers and so on are prepared to break the rules of society to get what they want instead of working for it. Thats attitude, not ecconomics. It comes dwn to culture, to role models, to programming IMO.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
It can't be racist, they're not a race. It could be a discriminating generalization - maybe some of them do wash themselves? But who gives a shit. They're not just complaining or protesting. They're going way overboard with their threats and bawwing. At nearly every budget cut this year, the affected party has complained and protested. None* of them have threatened to step to the european court for human rights. Especially not over something that is essentially the opposite of discrimination. * The gypsies haven't either, because they did it in reaction to something that wasn't a budget cut.
harold aptroot wrote:
It can't be racist, they're not a race.
Nonsensical rationalization and nothing more. Pick what ever term you wish which fits the following. A person with a prejudiced belief that one arbitrary grouping of characteristic/attribute is superior to others. Own your arbitrary prejudice rather than attempting to relabel it in a vain attempt to make it objective.
harold aptroot wrote:
It could be a discriminating generalization - maybe some of them do wash themselves
Obviously another offensive statement.
harold aptroot wrote:
They're not just complaining or protesting. They're going way overboard with their threats and bawwing.
At nearly every budget cut this year, the affected party has complained and protested. None* of them have threatened to step to the european court for human rights. Especially not over something that is essentially the opposite of discrimination.Provide examples of other groups that have had special treatment and which did not also protest in various ways when that treatment was removed or was attempted to be removed.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
It can't be racist, they're not a race.
Nonsensical rationalization and nothing more. Pick what ever term you wish which fits the following. A person with a prejudiced belief that one arbitrary grouping of characteristic/attribute is superior to others. Own your arbitrary prejudice rather than attempting to relabel it in a vain attempt to make it objective.
harold aptroot wrote:
It could be a discriminating generalization - maybe some of them do wash themselves
Obviously another offensive statement.
harold aptroot wrote:
They're not just complaining or protesting. They're going way overboard with their threats and bawwing.
At nearly every budget cut this year, the affected party has complained and protested. None* of them have threatened to step to the european court for human rights. Especially not over something that is essentially the opposite of discrimination.Provide examples of other groups that have had special treatment and which did not also protest in various ways when that treatment was removed or was attempted to be removed.
Look mate, it's supposed to be offensive. You can label it "racist" if you like - I don't really care, it's just that I like calling it what it is, and it ain't racism. I can give you some racism too, if you'd like.
jschell wrote:
Provide examples of other groups that have had special treatment and which did not also protest in various ways when that treatment was removed or was attempted to be removed.
I refuse. That would be an entirely pointless exercise. My point was never that they should quietly accept everything, though that would be nice too. They do, however, have to accept it. It's the law. They don't get to bawww about "human rights" when 1) they aren't even human, and 2) their human rights, supposing they deserve them, are not being threatened. And yes, that was offensive again, boohoo.
