The Rape of Europe

[obyknven]

all your kafir daughter are belong to us

We liberate them!....  soon

[Elerond]

 

Well, it's a blog. Is it unreadable because it disagrees with everything you believe?

Here is my view on this education of Western moral values to the refugees

 

Firstly I agree with the article that the refugees are not all stupid or ignorant and  this education is not  necessary to explain  " rape is wrong"

 

As I mentioned numerous times if you travel to the ME crimes like rape and murder are not common. So of course the refugees coming to Europe know this

 

So we are dealing with a small percentage of the refugees who are knowingly committing criminal acts for a number of reasons, we must charge them and we mustn't defend them. But they represent a small percentage of the overall refugees, 5-8 % ?

 

So its also unfair to think " these criminal acts represent the overall views and actions of all the refugees " 

   

 

 

Percentage of refugees that commit serious crimes is under 0.1% (which is small but still higher than what is within original population), but because there is tens of thousands or even millions in some countries, number of actual crimes is still worrisomely high.

 

And education is not meant to prevent crimes that are done in purpose, but to educate people about cultural difference and therefore what things our culture don't accept. This education is meant to put refugees in mind set that they prevent other refugees to do things that our society don't accept if they want to keep living here. Meaning that we actually acknowledge that refugees are intelligent people who will understand that it is best for themselves if there is no refugees that break our cultural taboos or certain laws that our culture has stronger views than other laws.

[Gfted1]

I can imagine many, many situations where murder seems like a downright rational reaction, to be honest.

Sure, me too, but "rational" is in the eye of the beholder. If someone snatched up my kid and I somehow got to them before the police, Bad Things would happen. Doesnt mean I wouldn't have to pay the piper afterwards. That's the price we pay for living in an orderly society.

[Malcador]

 

I can imagine many, many situations where murder seems like a downright rational reaction, to be honest.

Sure, me too, but "rational" is in the eye of the beholder. If someone snatched up my kid and I somehow got to them before the police, Bad Things would happen. Doesnt mean I wouldn't have to pay the piper afterwards. That's the price we pay for living in an orderly society.

You would make them watch Godfather 3 ?

 

Monster.

[obyknven]

German authorities send 13-old victim of gang-rape into psychiatric asylum.

https://magazin.spiegel.de/SP/2016/5/142149732/index.html

 

Just wow! Sure, after "correction"  she stop accuse saint migrants.  This **** happened not in scary Stalin's USSR 70 years ago, but in EU... now. My congratulations to Europeans - you are in real trouble.

[BruceVC]

German authorities send 13-old victim of gang-rape into psychiatric asylum.

https://magazin.spiegel.de/SP/2016/5/142149732/index.html

 

Just wow! Sure, after "correction"  she stop accuse saint migrants.  This **** happened not in scary Stalin's USSR 70 years ago, but in EU... now. My congratulations to Europeans - you are in real trouble.

Why is this such a terrible thing? A rape can be a very traumatic experience that requires psychiatric help, its not a punishment

 

And I cant read German so I'm assuming what you say is true

[213374U]

Sure, me too, but "rational" is in the eye of the beholder. If someone snatched up my kid and I somehow got to them before the police, Bad Things would happen. Doesnt mean I wouldn't have to pay the piper afterwards. That's the price we pay for living in an orderly society.

Er, no, rational is not in the eye of the beholder, like, at all. In fact, the scenario you are describing very much describes you acting irrationally -- out of rage and a desire for revenge, not based on any remotely logical reasoning. Logic would dictate that, if your children's welfare is your top priority (as it should be), depriving them of their father to fulfill your desire to off the guy out is the worst path to take, both for you and your children. Especially since you admit you'd gladly accept your due punishment!

 

I'm having trouble understanding your position. You literally say "life isn't fair". And then you consistently claim that wrongdoers must be punished for their deeds, even in extreme cases like the one you described, and even when other solutions beside punishment may exist. Because... it's only fair that they pay. So which one is it? Life is not fair except when it is...?

 

I'm all for an orderly society, but revenge isn't a requirement for order. And it also doesn't redress past offenses.

Edited February 1, 2016 by 213374U

[Elerond]

Why is this such a terrible thing? A rape can be a very traumatic experience that requires psychiatric help, its not a punishment

 

 

And I cant read German so I'm assuming what you say is true

 

 

That isn't necessary the wisest thing to do.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/police-say-13-year-old-girl-was-not-kidnapped-and-raped-by-asylum-seekers-in-berlin-a6823836.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/world/europe/russia-dismisses-german-claims-of-exploiting-teen-rape-case.html

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/27/europe/russia-germany-berlin-rape/

 

http://news.yahoo.com/raped-german-russian-teen-spent-night-friends-house-142011798.html

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/31/teenage-girl-made-up-migrant-claim-that-caused-uproar-in-germany

 

 

 

I can't claim that I know what happened but whole case is now pawn of political games and actual facts are impossible to get and things aren't helped by news papers trying sell copies.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Elerond

[BruceVC]

 

Why is this such a terrible thing? A rape can be a very traumatic experience that requires psychiatric help, its not a punishment

 

 

And I cant read German so I'm assuming what you say is true

 

 

That isn't necessary the wisest thing to do.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/police-say-13-year-old-girl-was-not-kidnapped-and-raped-by-asylum-seekers-in-berlin-a6823836.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/world/europe/russia-dismisses-german-claims-of-exploiting-teen-rape-case.html

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/27/europe/russia-germany-berlin-rape/

 

http://news.yahoo.com/raped-german-russian-teen-spent-night-friends-house-142011798.html

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/31/teenage-girl-made-up-migrant-claim-that-caused-uproar-in-germany

 

 

 

I can't claim that I know what happened but whole case is now pawn of political games and actual facts are impossible to get and things aren't helped by news papers trying sell copies.

 

Very interesting post, nice one

 

I have said this before but you have a  excellent habit of posting relevant links when you make your points 

Edited February 1, 2016 by BruceVC

[Gfted1]

Er, no, rational is not in the eye of the beholder, like, at all. In fact, the scenario you are describing very much describes you acting irrationally -- out of rage and a desire for revenge, not based on any remotely logical reasoning. Logic would dictate that, if your children's welfare is your top priority (as it should be), depriving them of their father to fulfill your desire to off the guy out is the worst path to take, both for you and your children. Especially since you admit you'd gladly accept your due punishment!

I disagree. Sweet revenge can absolutely be "rational" to the aggrieved.

 

I'm having trouble understanding your position. You literally say "life isn't fair". And then you consistently claim that wrongdoers must be punished for their deeds, even in extreme cases like the one you described, and even when other solutions beside punishment may exist. Because... it's only fair that they pay. So which one is it? Life is not fair except when it is...?

Exactly. Life is terribly unfair, wrongdoers should pay, I am not above the law.

[Zoraptor]

I disagree. Sweet revenge can absolutely be "rational" to the aggrieved.

Anything can be "rational" to the person performing the action- just going to stick some more quarters into that slot machine, I'm due for a win having stuck ten thousand in already; that's just logic!- that doesn't make it actually rational in any sense at all except that the person is deluded enough to believe it is. Being rational is making a decision based on an informed reading of the pros and cons of various possible responses, not on deciding to jerk your knee through the desk because that 'feels' right and just. A rational reading of the situation is essentially that which numbersman provided, if the sole pro to the cons of leaving children without a parent is "but it makes me feel better!" then you're not making a rational judgement at all, airquotes or not, but an emotional, stupid and utterly selfish one to service your own gratification; with a garnish of self righteousness to sweeten the deal.

 

If you want to go all eye for an eye that's fine, ish, but at least don't dress it up as 'logic' or similar because it isn't.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Zoraptor

[Gfted1]

Now I get it, were having a pissing contest over the word "rational". R00fles!

 

I don't think stoning an adulterer to death or marrying a child is "rational", but other cultures do. What are you and l33t's grand proclamations on those matters?

[Barothmuk]

Too leet for you. I finally get it. 

[213374U]

I disagree. Sweet revenge can absolutely be "rational" to the aggrieved.

 

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means:

 

 

based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings

 

 

 

 

Exactly. Life is terribly unfair, wrongdoers should pay, I am not above the law.

>"life is not fair"

>wrongdoers must pay because IT IS FAIR

 

DOES NOT COMPUTE

 

I would understand if you said you intend to get away with murder, because life isn't fair, and all that matters is what you can get away with. At least that would be internally consistent. But fairly punishing wrongdoers based on the premise that life is unavoidably unfair and therefore it constitutes no defense makes zero sense, sorry.

[213374U]

I don't think stoning an adulterer to death or marrying a child is "rational", but other cultures do. What are you and l33t's grand proclamations on those matters?

 

Oh, I get it now. You have me pictured as one of those frapuccino-sipping, lumberjack beard-toting Twitter "liberals", right? Your constant tilting at windmills makes sense considering that.

 

For the record, I find both practices barbaric. What does that have to do with anything, again?

Edited February 1, 2016 by 213374U

[Amentep]

 

Exactly. Life is terribly unfair, wrongdoers should pay, I am not above the law.

>"life is not fair"

>wrongdoers must pay because IT IS FAIR

 

DOES NOT COMPUTE

 

I would understand if you said you intend to get away with murder, because life isn't fair, and all that matters is what you can get away with. At least that would be internally consistent. But fairly punishing wrongdoers based on the premise that life is unavoidably unfair and therefore it constitutes no defense makes zero sense, sorry.

 

Probably going to regret stepping into this, but...

 

Gfted1 says "wrongdoers should pay" not "must pay". Since he seems to acknowledge that some wrongdoers will not pay (should instead of must), his contention that "life is unfair" follows based on the presentation that Gfted1 expects wrongdoers to be punished.

 

To tie this back to what he said, knowing right from wrong, he would still opt to do wrong in some situations (something he finds rational) to ensure that a wrongdoer does pay rather than allowing a chance that a wrongdoer who did wrong to his child does not pay (life isn't fair) even acknowledging that he would accept punishment (assuming he doesn't get away with it - "life isn't fair") because he expects wrongdoers, even himself, to pay.

 

I really don't see where this argument has arisen.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Amentep

[Gfted1]

>"life is not fair"

>wrongdoers must pay because IT IS FAIR

 

DOES NOT COMPUTE

 

I would understand if you said you intend to get away with murder, because life isn't fair, and all that matters is what you can get away with. At least that would be internally consistent. But fairly punishing wrongdoers based on the premise that life is unavoidably unfair and therefore it constitutes no defense makes zero sense, sorry.

I think youre having a conversation that only took place in your head. I don't see a single post where I claim my make believe vigilante justice was fair. I even go so far as to acknowledge its "unfairness" by me having to "pay the price".

 

Edit: ^Ninja'd!

[Gfted1]

Oh, I get it now. You have me pictured as one of those frapuccino-sipping, lumberjack beard-toting Twitter "liberals", right? Your constant tilting at windmills makes sense considering that.

No, more like the "nothing better to do but to whine over a single word" type.

 

For the record, I find both practices barbaric. What does that have to do with anything, again?

Not a lot. You guys seem to feel you have the word "rational" on lockdown so I just wondered how other world events play out in your heads.

[213374U]

Gfted1 says "wrongdoers should pay" not "must pay". Since he seems to acknowledge that some wrongdoers will not pay (should instead of must), his contention that "life is unfair" follows based on the presentation that Gfted1 expects wrongdoers to be punished.

 

To tie this back to what he said, knowing right from wrong, he would still opt to do wrong in some situations (something he finds rational) to ensure that a wrongdoer does pay rather than allowing a chance that a wrongdoer who did wrong to his child does not pay (life isn't fair) even acknowledging that he would accept punishment (assuming he doesn't get away with it - "life isn't fair") because he expects wrongdoers, even himself, to pay.

 

The distinction you are making is false: there is no difference between "wrongdoers should pay" and "wrongdoers must pay" in this context because the framework that will make them pay is man-made. It is not fair for wrongdoers to hurt others without consequence, so we punish them. There is a conscious decision to act on that unfairness of life. Gfted1 simply considers that's as far as people should go trying to correct the unfairness of life, but no further. His reasoning: "life is unfair". It's plain that this is not a reason, but rather a statement of fact. Why bother having laws at all, if some wrongdoers are going to get away? Life is unfair regardless, you know.

 

The fact that some wrongdoers will get away with murder is irrelevant. They are not getting away with it because we let them, they get away because man-made systems are not perfect. This imperfection is not a valid excuse not to try and make life as fair as possible for everyone with the means we have.

 

Again, why expect wrongdoers, including yourself, to pay, if "life isn't fair"? Life is as fair as we make it.

 

Why would you regret getting involved, anyway?

[213374U]

 

 

Oh, I get it now. You have me pictured as one of those frapuccino-sipping, lumberjack beard-toting Twitter "liberals", right? Your constant tilting at windmills makes sense considering that.

No, more like the "nothing better to do but to whine over a single word" type.

For the record, I find both practices barbaric. What does that have to do with anything, again?

Not a lot. You guys seem to feel you have the word "rational" on lockdown so I just wondered how other world event play out in your heads.

 

Yeah, it's not really my fault that you throw words around without knowing what they mean. I didn't quote myself to define "rational", I quoted a dictionary. What you said is *wrong* based on the universally accepted definition of the word. Take it up with the English language.

 

Send me a memo when they change it so I can adjust my grand proclamations accordingly, okay?

[Amentep]

The distinction you are making is false: there is no difference between "wrongdoers should pay" and "wrongdoers must pay"

 

Generally there is a distinction in my mind within the nature of probability with the use of should and must. Should denotes what obligation exists and should be maintained. Must implies an obligation that cannot be avoided under normal circumstances and most extraordinary ones.  Saying an employee "should" greet a customer with a smile is a vastly different conception to saying that the employee "must" greet a customer with a smile.

 

While practice may end up with either having variable probabilities of existence, as above, I personally rate "must" as 'stronger' than "should" when discussing statements of probability, and therefore presented what I understood to be Gfted's distinction.

 

Again, why expect wrongdoers, including yourself, to pay, if "life isn't fair"? Life is as fair as we make it.

 

Gfted expects to theoretically pay in his imaginary scenario because he does not expect an unlawful response to an unlawful action to have less than a lawful response.  Even if he feels the unlawful response to the unlawful action was justified or reasonable given the context, he does not think that the lawful response needs to contextualize his unlawful reaction to mitigate whether he has culpability under the law.  He accepts it does and that lawful action is warranted.

 

I'd imagine he'd hope that context to determine what the lawful determination of response (punishment) would be, but context doesn't make his actions lawful.

 

Or to put it another way, he accepts if "he does the crime, he'll do the time".

 

Why would you regret getting involved, anyway?

 

Because this is about as close to a semantics argument as I want to get.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Amentep

[aluminiumtrioxid]

At this point I'm not sure even the participants know what the argument is about anymore (I sure as hell don't).

 

Maybe it's time to get back and re-examine the statements that sparked the discourse? I mean, if I understand this correctly, what Numbers is taking issue with is Gfted's rather dismissive attitude towards the role environmental circumstances play in human behavior, yet for about a page now, the discussion has been about anything but that, which might explain the mounting frustration on both sides with counter-arguments that seem to be aimed at matters the participants consider to be vestigial to the original point.

[Zoraptor]

I don't think stoning an adulterer to death or marrying a child is "rational", but other cultures do.

 

That's belief/ morality/ tradition; not rationality. They didn't do an in depth analysis of the pro and cons before coming up with those rules, they do it because their parents did it or the Flying Spaghetti Monster('s representative(s)) 'told' them to. Belief is not a synonym for rationality, and it doesn't matter how hard the person believes or whether you put airquotes around it.

 

To go back to the original, meting out summary justice would be an emotional response, understandable perhaps even justifiable too, but there's no need for airquoting "rational" at all as it isn't even a slightly accurate usage and there are accurate terms available. Simple fact is that it is highly unlikely anyone would be able to make rational decisions in that situation, and the simple fact of having reasons for an action does not alone make it rational or logical. That's why you're getting flak for using 'rational', it simply isn't the right word for what you mean. What you're talking about is the mess of subjective stuff that goes on in people's minds involving belief, tradition, morality, emotion etc, they're all the enemy of rationality because rationality is at its heart an objective logical approach that is immiscible with subjectives like tradition, belief, emotion etc.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Zoraptor

[Malcador]

I really don't see where this argument has arisen.

Is easy when you consider the crowd. Rather amusing to read barbs on pontificating, heh.

[obyknven]

 

Why is this such a terrible thing? A rape can be a very traumatic experience that requires psychiatric help, its not a punishment

 

 

And I cant read German so I'm assuming what you say is true

 

 

That isn't necessary the wisest thing to do.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/police-say-13-year-old-girl-was-not-kidnapped-and-raped-by-asylum-seekers-in-berlin-a6823836.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/world/europe/russia-dismisses-german-claims-of-exploiting-teen-rape-case.html

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/27/europe/russia-germany-berlin-rape/

 

http://news.yahoo.com/raped-german-russian-teen-spent-night-friends-house-142011798.html

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/31/teenage-girl-made-up-migrant-claim-that-caused-uproar-in-germany

 

 

 

I can't claim that I know what happened but whole case is now pawn of political games and actual facts are impossible to get and things aren't helped by news papers trying sell copies.

 

1. Bruce can easily google-transate from German language, but as usual - when he encounter truth not-fitted with  his "Western values"  he suddenly become dumb, can't read and understand nothing. 

 

2. You post here wonderful  links with  mobbing of this poor girl in Western media.  No investigation yet has been ended, but media  blaming this victim of crime as Russian agent who trying  ruin happy life in EU by false accusations against migrants.

 

3. Firstly German police refuse begin of investigation - they say nothing happen. In other words they just send this Russian untermench girl GTFO. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.  Later, police begin investigation still - after ****storm in community of ex-USSR Germans. Yet later they find proofs of group sex between this 13-old  girl and a few migrants, but say this is not rape, poor innocent migrants just has been cheated by her.  German authorities lie about this case from beginning and normal people don't believe to their words (and nobody wondering if yet later they say what this is Lisa rape these poor migrants). 

 

Next videos just show how real such situation (gang-rape of child by group of migrants) can be - but German police from beginning completely refuse such possibility.

http://youtu.be/XdSsJQ-fvOU

 

http://youtu.be/G21V-80uBzM