dialamah

How are you different from Imams who call for Jews to be put to death? Hate speech is hate speech, even when its a White "Nationalist" calling for the death of Muslims.

Some people are exhibitionists, and they're the ones who get a thrill out of wandering around in public with lots of "exposure". Doesn't mean they want to have sex with a lot of people, or even in public.

You can end up in Maximum Security (and in solitary confinement) just for masturbating or even talking back to a guard . It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the crime you were originally in prison for. And guards have biases too - if they believe Blacks are more violent, they're going to come down harder on them. If Caucasian/Asian inmates have resources available to them that they can share with guards, they can get an easier ride.

Because of our Christian heritage, culturally we are behind where we are *legally*. Christianity still directly controls a significant portion of the population, and indirectly affects considerably more people. 1983 is hardly ancient history and before that, a man could rape his wife at will. In certain Christian groups, he still can. In certain secular subgroups, women are expected to submit to their husbands - which again means that a man can rape his wife. Just check out some of the alt-right groups if you don't believe me. Yes, certain immigrant groups are even more entrenched in that kind of female-submission mindset, no doubt.

For sure, CP, I am not going to doubt your anecdotal information. The study wasn't even about percentages of Black vs. percentage of non-Black who commit crimes; it was only a profile of the type of crime/criminal entrenchment based on ethnicity, more or less. The point of the exercise was simply that, even when presented with facts provided by an organization who should "know", it's argued against by people who have biases - and in this case, it keeps drifting to the wrong argument. Children raised in poverty tend to have more issues and engage in more criminality than children raised in more affluent households, regardless of race. It's not just that economic pressures tend to lead to family breakdown, but that economic pressures also lead to violence. When the oil industry collapsed in Alberta, domestic abuse calls rose significantly, and no doubt led to family breakdown for at least some couples - even among Caucasian people. Addressing these issues will help all kids raised in poverty, just Black kids. You perhaps don't mean it, but focusing on Blacks as if they are the only subgroup that suffers from these things seems racist. Addressing these problems in society will also benefit almost every kid, regardless of race, who comes from a marginalized subgroup. White drug addicts/White single mothers are also a 'marginalized subgroup', though quite possibly not as marginalized as Indigenous or Black groups.

This made me laugh. I am pretty sure JT knows when he's lying, and I think Trump doesn't know when he's lying because he's spent his life telling people what he thinks they want to hear and doesn't really care if it's true or not.

This the point I was trying to make, of course. Here's a summary of the conversation: CP doubted this, so I posted a study that I'd posted about before and that had been rejected by certain posters. The study presented facts about the different profiles of Blacks/Asians/Caucasions/other minorities who were in or had been in prison. But it didn't completely skewer Blacks, it even suggested that in some small and pretty specific ways, Blacks might not be worse than Whites when it comes to criminal behavior. But this wasn't acceptable to you, so you argued and argued, and finally admitted: "I don't believe the study says what you are claiming, and even if it did, I wouldn't believe it." This also goes to the other thread on media: People believe what they want to believe, regardless of the information/facts in front of them. (The biggest problem I have with the study is its age: published in 2004, the data may be too old to be reliable. Nonetheless, it is *facts* collected by the prison system which you *chose* to reject because you didn't like what those facts suggested - not because of its age).

All those religions believe men dominate women and women are there for men's convenience and pleasure. This is also the Christian belief, and Western culture is "Christian". In Canada, its only been 30 years that men could be charged with raping their wives. My mother told me that she had to get her husband's permission to use birth control in the 50s. Both of these things reflect our society's deep rooted belief that women are subject to men. Sure, we are getting past all that BS, but If you think we've left all that behind in less than a generation, you are remarkably naive. Especially given that most Canadians still call themselves Christian and a significant number of them also support the Biblical teaching that women submit to men. That attitude is alive and well in Canada, even if its not as blatant as it used to be.

What facts am I so blatantly ignoring? Nowhere does the study I linked to say that Blacks outperform Caucasians in terms of violence/entrenchment, but you seem to have a real need to interpret it that way. Why? Perhaps you failed to read the entire thing? Here is another excerpt: This paragraph is pretty specific in stating that the less serious nature of crimes by Blacks results in shorter sentences than for Caucasians (and Asians). So, who is ignoring facts provided?

Ok.

Nope, I posted that as an example of how people reject facts which do not align with their point of view. My argument was strictly "Here is a study about different criminal profiles of inmates. The study did not say "Blacks were less likely to commit crime"; it said "These are the kinds of crimes Blacks commit, and how entrenched they are in a criminal lifestyle". It provided the same information for Asians and Caucasians. Statistically speaking, the people in this study were 100% likely to commit a crime, every single one of them, simply because they were already in prison for having done so. It seems neither you nor CP seem to be able to abide the notion that Blacks aren't as violent as Whites, even though here is a study on actual criminals which suggests that is true. Of course, Blacks/Asians are more likely (according to this study) to be in jail for drug-related offenses. So far my arguments have been: Black, Caucasian, Asian inmates have different criminal profiles; Blacks/Aboriginals are more likely to end up in prison because of background social causes. What exactly am I not acknowledging?

Locally, in the mainstream media, I've seen *news* reports on both the good/bad refugees/immigrants. Not many on either side, I have to admit. You are convinced that refugees/(some) immigrants offer nothing to Canada but financial disaster and high crime. You aren't finding mainstream news stories that support your view, so then you simply assume that they must be hiding it. That makes no sense to me. Perhaps what you believe isn't true, or at least isn't the disaster you assume, hmmm? BTW, the local Ikea has a started a program to target the hiring of refugees to help them settle and assimilate into Canada; even if their English is poor, they'll find a spot for them. They're touting it as a commitment to diversity, but I bet the reasons are more economic than ideological. I suspect they can't find enough (non-refugee) people willing to work at the wages they're willing to pay - so they are tapping into this resource. The lower-paying industries really do need the immigrants you are so dead set against, because we don't have enough (real Canadian) people even now to fill all the low-skill and low-paying jobs that are out there. We often don't even have enough people to fill the high-skill/high paying jobs available. Just try reading a few news stories about server, retail and now trucking jobs that are going begging for lack of staff. So maybe that's true where you live. Where I live, the names/faces are different: predominantly South Asian and Caucasian. And, based on the studies which contain facts and which I've cited previously, these criminals are most likely from at least second and probably third generation immigrants. They are Canadian; they just don't happen to be White Canadians. Unlike you, I don't make assumptions about the ethnic background of criminals mentioned in the media, if the story doesn't specify and no names are mentioned. If you *assume* you know who they are talking about, you are merely feeding your bias. Your assumptions (no matter how often you make them, or how many people agree) are not facts. I work with and live next to quite a few immigrants, so hearing about the wild failure of seemingly every newcomer does not play well for me. It sounds to me as if the mainstream news does not report on what you *assume* is true, therefore you *assume* they are hiding the true facts. Given that we have literally millions of immigrants in this country and only a small proportion of all of them end up on the news for criminal behavior, and that the vast majority of people who live here actually do have jobs, I think the problem is what you believe about them, and not what is true about them.

I calmly referenced an article about the difference in the criminality of Caucasian, Black and Asian inmates-people who are already in jail, and then proceeded to calmly defend my point of view. This study had nothing to do with how many of each were in prison as compared to their population outside of prison, only the different profiles of crime and behavior of the different groups. Why people end up in jail in the first place is an entirely different topic; studies (with facts and all that stuff) demonstrate that people who are marginalized tend to end up in jail in greater proportion than those who are not. Doesn't matter if they are white/brown/black. In our society, black/brown people tend to be marginalized in higher proportions than white, therefore, they will tend to end up in jail in higher proportion than whites. Perhaps if you weren't so furious, you could have followed along and realized these are two different populations (1. inmates and 2. general population) and therefore, two different arguments.

And yet, I have seen those things on CBC, on panels where "both viewpoints" are presented. It may not be as prevalent (monthly, weekly, daily, hourly?) as some would like, but it seems that the word about how awful (some Muslim) immigrants are, the word certainly seems to be getting around anyway. It seems to me that even if the claim that the mainstream media only focuses on the positive were true, it's absolutely necessary given the plethora of sites presenting the "other side", accurately or not.

Canadians like America (and Americans) generally, but at any given moment some portion of us don't like America's current administration. Doesn't matter if it was Obama a few years ago, or Trump now - you can't please everybody all the time. Heck, it is a matter of pride with Canada that we shared the largest undefended border in the world (at least, it used to be). The US exercises considerable influence around the world, so is naturally a topic of conversation for many people; it would be odd if that wasn't so. And not everyone is going to agree with everything the States does. Taking disagreement as 'hatred' and a reason to split up is really your problem; no couple gets divorced because they disagree about some things. They work through them, which the States and Canada have done in the past and no doubt will continue to do. We wouldn't celebrate if America was gone, only when Trump is gone. (Except of course for those in Canada misled enough to think he's normal or something.)

Well I must say that both sides are available to everyone, merely at the press of a button, and several mainstream news outlets present stories on both sides ... Still, people are entrenched, so I don't think this is a ?media" problem so much as a human problem. Not that media is blameless or without influence, but people have to actually want both sides of the story, first and foremost.

We see what happens here on these forums, obviously. But even if the same news source posts "treacly" stuff about refugees and also posts about refugees who aren't working, are ungrateful, who engage in crimes? The people choose which stories they "like" better. So if on Tuesday, Global posts about a refugee who groped girls in a swimming pool and on Wednesday covered a family who set up a small business and are doing well, those who dislike immigrants/Muslims will seize on the groping refugee as representative of all Muslims and the other family as an aberration, and of course vice-versa for the people who are ok with immigration/Muslims. I think this is part of "confirmation bias" and maybe has less to do with the news than with the people watching.

"Dilutes their criminality". The study I linked to talks about proportion within the groups, so how is "diluted" if more than one group is combined? Say the study numbers broke down like this Out of 300 prisoners; 100 are Caucasian - 40 are violent/entrenched; 60 involved with drugs. 100 are Blacks - 20 are violent/entrenched; 80 are involved with drugs. 100 Asians - 10 are violent/entrenched; 90 are involved with drugs. Show me how you would combine those numbers to demonstrate how the Black group has a higher percentage of violent/entrenched criminals than the Caucasion group. I do not think you can do it. Also, the study looked only at the prison population, which means the population outside the prison is irrelevant. If you are trying to say that Blacks are more "criminal" than other groups because they comprise only 3.5% of the population outside of jail, but a higher percentage inside jail, thats a different discussion. Its also a discussion where social factors will be dismissed as reasons for higher incarceration rates of Blacks by those with a "Blacks are just more criminal" bias, ignoring studies and facts that demonstrate criminality is much more related to social factors than race.

Yes, its sad. I wonder why so many indigenous folks are represented in our jails, on our streets and in our morgues? Must be they chose it somehow, because certainly all the studies about history, poverty and discrimination resulting in poor outcomes (ie: addiction, jail, death) for this group are wrong, given they were carried out by academics. And, as everyone knows academics are all left-wing shills with a clear agenda of beating down White people (especially men) while providing excuses and freebies to lazy, entitled, criminally-minded natives.

That is a shame. If they had their way, I've no doubt that as a nation we would be offering apologies and and compensation to Muslims in 50 or 75 years, as we have to other groups when we've allowed our collective fear and ignorance to over-ride our humanity and common sense.

Exactly an example of a way to disregard facts which you don't like. If A is Asian, B is Black and C is Caucasion, you could write it like this: B>A and A+B<C; therefore C>A and C>B. You seem to be saying it looks like this: B>A and A+B<C therefore B>A and B>C, which looks to me like a logical impossibility. I didn't ignore that line; I expected someone to go exactly where you went with it.

Ok, go for it. I've posted some facts above, which you previously rejected and now you can reject them again.

You could be right. On the other hand, I've posted information regarding a study that was done inside Canadian prisons indicating Whites were more criminally-minded than visible minority offenders, and that visible minorities were less dangerous to individuals than Caucasians. But this information is simply rejected by the usual suspects.

Yes, they are a relatively small minority of men. This is why most women don't generally assume men are going to be a-holes. This is exactly the same argument I make about Islamic terrorists, which you reject. They are all motivated by religion, whether its a devout Christian or Muslim or Sikh who firmly believes in his current God-given rights over women, or it's an atheist who thinks our society has completely shed the shackles of religious patriarchy and women should want to submit to his "natural, biological" rights over her.

Clearly it is more than a defamation suit, since prior to the defamation suit going to trial, the judge had to affirm that hate speech existed and so the defendants couldn't use a "free speech" defense.