Sky, I was out shopping. It's the definition of late term abortion that Trump and the republicans in general deliberately misinterpreted and has then been falsely disseminated by the media.
Late term abortion is not up to 40 weeks, it is up to the point where the foetus is classed as being able to live outside of the womb. All Clintons position is is the same as the legal precedent, which is exactly that and only abortions after that if there is a significant risk to the mothers life.
One of your links (the USA today one) has even proven it wrong yourself. I'll quote directly from it -
“There are no nine-month abortions,” Gunter said. There are situations in which labor is induced because of problems in the last month of pregnancy, but “at 38 or 39 weeks it’s always an induction and is simply called a delivery," she said."
It is obscenely ridiculous to suggest that support is there for what you are insinuating.
You yourself stated you think there ought to be exceptions (e.g. rape)
-------------------------------------
What I said was I concede there may be a need to allow some exceptional circumstances. It doesnt mean I like it. Even with rape where it is the child of a vile monster and a victim who may not want the monsters child growing inside them, that child would live if the mother went through to birth. I can accept there may be serious psycological issues for the mother and you may have to allow the abortion, but my far preferred solution is for the child to be given up for adoption if they cant cope with keeping it themselves. I know someone who brought up a child as a result of rape.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
Sky, I was out shopping. It's the definition of late term abortion that Trump and the republicans in general deliberately misinterpreted and has then been falsely disseminated by the media.
Late term abortion is not up to 40 weeks, it is up to the point where the foetus is classed as being able to live outside of the womb. All Clintons position is is the same as the legal precedent, which is exactly that and only abortions after that if there is a significant risk to the mothers life.
One of your links (the USA today one) has even proven it wrong yourself. I'll quote directly from it -
“There are no nine-month abortions,” Gunter said. There are situations in which labor is induced because of problems in the last month of pregnancy, but “at 38 or 39 weeks it’s always an induction and is simply called a delivery," she said."
It is obscenely ridiculous to suggest that support is there for what you are insinuating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I totallly accept a lot of the information in modern politics is propeganda and lies. Thats why I dont take much at face value. I have seen a video of Clinton saying she supports up to birth abortion where the mothers life is at risk. The problem is defining what that means and one of the articles I posted spoke about that. All it takes is for a mother to say the thought of having a baby makes them suicidal. Clinton in her speech said she would allow that as reason for abortion. Whats to stop them lying to get permission for an abortion?
A quick google search brought up this lot. Make of it what you will.
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=clinton%20support%20up%20to%20birth%20abortion
With that last post, you need to look at the ones relating to her speech on 19th October 2016.
I just had a nother look at that while waiting to see if there is a repsonse. I notice the posts before 19th October all say those claims are a lie and themn BOOM, she makes a speech supporting exactly what had been denied.
"All it takes is for a mother to say the thought of having a baby makes them suicidal. Clinton in her speech said she would allow that as reason for abortion."
No she didn't at all, you are just making this up. Have you actually bothered to watch the presidential debate?
This is the exact transcript of what she said -
"I have met with women who toward the end of their pregnancy get the worst news one could get, that their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term or that something terrible has happened or just been discovered about the pregnancy. I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions. So you can regulate if you are doing so with the life and the health of the mother taken into account."
Unfortunately there is so much misinformation on the web that only political junkies can make somewhat informed choices these days. As they say 'democracy is a great idea if it wasn't for the people'.
I have to ask, are you wumming here as you are putting up links that contradict your own position.
"As they say 'democracy is a great idea if it wasn't for the people'."
I was just thinking of exactly that statement.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
I have to ask, are you wumming here as you are putting up links that contradict your own position.
"As they say 'democracy is a great idea if it wasn't for the people'."
I was just thinking of exactly that statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Im deliberately putting up links that dont look like they are wrotten with my point of view. There is infomration in them to support what I am saying though and if those links dont deny it. For example someone posted a quote saying abortion doesnt happen in the last 2 weeks of pregnancy, but (I cant remember if it was the same one or another link I posted) it says they call abortion in the last 2 weeks of pregnancy a "delivery", even if it involves killing the baby. It is only not abortion in name only.
Its been a while since I have looked at much of this stuff in detail so a lot of what I am posting is from memory. I can understand if I have not given the best representation of all the facts, but over the years I have seen so much informatin on this subject I have no doubt that what I am saying is correct. Searching through to find proper evidence nicluding videos of the people in questin saying this stuff would take a trained journalist weeks. I dont think I've done too ba in a few minutes here and there today.
I live by a simple principle as a man. While the baby is inside a woman it is her prerogative as a mother to make decisions over her own body.
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 minute ago
I live by a simple principle as a man. While the baby is inside a woman it is her prerogative as a mother to make decisions over her own body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, us fellas will never know what it's like so it's not really down to us to dictate what should or shouldn't happen.
Walk a mile in another persons shoes and all that.
"Im deliberately putting up links that dont look like they are wrotten with my point of view. There is infomration in them to support what I am saying though"
No there really isn't. Directly quote one link that you think backs up what you think either Clintons position or the law is currently.
It takes absolutely no time at all, all you need to do is read the Roe vs Wade case and watch the presidential debate.
"For example someone posted a quote saying abortion doesnt happen in the last 2 weeks of pregnancy, but (I cant remember if it was the same one or another link I posted) it says they call abortion in the last 2 weeks of pregnancy a "delivery", even if it involves killing the baby. It is only not abortion in name only."
?!?! It's called a Caesarian and doesn't involve killing the baby, hence it being called a delivery was the exact point that doctor was making.
I'm done I'm afraid. You are either wumming or have a non existent grasp of basic comprehension. If it's the former, I'm not interested. If it's the latter, then I fear that any attempts I make to correct that over an Internet forum will be in vain considering years of schooling clearly haven't had much impact.
I could say you have been brainwashed by the left wing establishment to accept what they say without question. I have over the years had friends with a huge variety of views from self confessed left wing extremists to members of the National Front, Jews and Muslims, pro-life to pro-choice. I have heard all sorts of allegations, conspiracy theories, etc, most of which are far from convincing. The stuff on the Clintons going back to before Bill was President is one of the more convincing ones, including a long history of ther support for abortion up to birth whcih goes back to at least about 2003. I have seen documentaries of people exposing what happens in the abortion industry and it is shocking. One even claimed to have cut the beating heart out of a fetus without the parents permisssion so it could be sold for research. I cant say that its definitely true, just that they said it was and were convincing in their show of emotion when talking about it.
I dont really care if someone on an internet forum believes it or not, that is your choice. All I can say is over a number of years I have seen a lot of things to convince me of all sorts of things, but most I have dismissed as not having sufficient evidence to even entertain the idea. What I would say to you is learn to inverstigate things for yourself and dont just accept things because someone in authority told you to. There is usually an agenda behind everything.
Iag, is there any chance you're confusing 'term' pregnancy with the concept of 'at birth'?
Hold on, maybe it's me who's confusing terms here.
Just reading'term' is considered as of 37 weeks; I thought it was much earlier than that.
comment by Mourinho delenda est (U6426)
posted 32 seconds ago
Hold on, maybe it's me who's confusing terms here.
Just reading'term' is considered as of 37 weeks; I thought it was much earlier than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are probably thinking of 24 weeks that the NHS allows abortions up to. Babies have survived outside of the womb at less than 22 weeks.
I guess what a lot of this boils down to is when you think the baby is a living person. For me it is at conception after which point it will grow from a fertilised egg to a fetus, from a fetus to a baby, from a baby to a toddler, then to a child, youth, adult, middle age and ild age hopefully. I dont see the distinction at any point of life. If you choose to believe that life can be ended at any time for whatever reason is up to you, but I dont have to agree with it.
comment by thebluebellsareblue (U9292)
posted 9 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by Dude Bro (U1250)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 8 hours, 55 minutes ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 2 minutes ago
Tbh they are all books written by people. Why should people take them so seriously? Some people people kill for them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious books contain a set of values the followers hold dear.
Constitutions hold values that nationalists hold dear.
Both sets of followers kill, it isn't exclusive to religion.
More people have been killed in the name of democracy in recent years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you really need a book to tell you how to live your life?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a good question.
It depends what's in the book and what a set of rules represent.
Being good is subjective. Bin Laden thought he was being good as did George Bush.
People think it's good to join the EDL and keep Britain white and others think it's good to not allow women to drive or go to school.
For me personally the Quran provides me with a moral anchor but don't confuse that with not having your own brain.
I studied my beliefs and approached it with a critical mind, I questioned why people like Bin Laden did the thing he did whilst calling him self a Muslim, I questioned why the Saudi's treat women the way they do and I questioned why honour killings and FGM existed and a lot more.
I found satisfying answers which is why I get frustrated when people assume that a religion says something without knowledge when I and many others have studied and continue to study the depth of religion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are born innocent and we are also given genes to protect our species. We are moral people by and large. No book changes that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said being good is subjective.
I was born here but my background is Moroccan and 95% of my extended family live in that country.
There is now only one country standing in the way of Libya (ravaged by extremists) and Morocco and that's Algeria.
People who put on a British/American military uniform thought they were doing good work by demolishing almost every country between Libya and Iraq and now it's on the door step of my family.
Not only that but if I don't call these men heroes I'm considered to be some kind of extremist by some people.
For me all of that is pure evil, the Islamic rules of engagement tell me that I can't hurt anybody in battle except men of fighting age who are also trying to kill me.
That speaks to me morally and it also allows me to call out those who pretend to be moral but kill innocent civilians.
Collateral damage doesn't exist. Going into a war knowing that innocent people will die isn't honourable it's morally bankrupt.
Others disagree and say it has to happen and then call people who voluntarily do the killing heroes.
So it doesn't really matter if you are born innocent the human brain will be corrupted.
This is one of the reasons why I don't have faith in people, or rules created by men. Although I will abide by them in which ever country I chose to live in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules of engagement I followed in Bosnia were the same. Don't shoot until fired upon, or if your life is in eminent danger. It's not just an Islamic morality thing.
10.6 % of the imprisoned population in the Netherlands, where I am from, is Moroccan, which is the largest group of one foreign nationality. I guess they didn't follow the rules of my country. But Moroccans only count for 2.2% of our population. They are a society in the Netherlands who seemingly not really want to or able to integrate. My sister and her family were terrorised by a group of Moroccan kids as wrte other people in the neighborhood. At some point they had to put camera's up as bricks came flying through my sister's windows. My nephews were terrified. People sold their houses at a loss and left. It went all the way up to the government. Police couldn't do jack sheite. Moroccan parents don't correct their children. It's a facking mess. Later one of the cants died in a police chase. His death was much appreciated I can tell you that much.
All this fuels right wing sentiments in Holland. As it does in all countries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair points, dude.
You can relate to why European's feel mass movement of people into europe is not simply positive or welcome.
It is all about numbers too, as we have to be humane and do the right thing, morally.
Balance is vital.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Has it got to do with Moroccans living in the poorest areas in Holland?
Black people make up 35% of jail inmates in the US and only 12.2% of the entire American population is actually black
"Black Americans were incarcerated in state prisons at an average rate of 5.1 times that of white Americans, the report said, and in some states that rate was 10 times or more. The US is 63.7% non-Hispanic white, 12.2% black, 8.7% Hispanic white and 0.4% Hispanic black, according to the most recent census."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/18/mass-incarceration-black-americans-higher-rates-disparities-report
Does this mean that their is something genetically wrong with black people? Culturally wrong? Or are they just a victims of their environment?
African Americans have the highest poverty rate in the US at 27.4 percent.
"In the Netherlands, twenty percent of Turkish and Moroccan people live below the poverty line — three times more than their white Dutch counterparts."
http://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/resistance-racism-intensifies-netherlands/
"Sixteen percent of non-white Dutch citizens, 28 percent of youth and 40 percent in the most marginalized urban neighborhoods are unemployed, according to the Annual Integration Report in 2013. This is predominantly caused, the report suggests, by racial prejudice among employers."
The same can be said about the black population in America.
https://www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/discrimination-job-market-united-states
"Compared to whites, African Americans are twice as likely to be unemployed, and earn nearly 25 percent less when they are employed"
It goes on and this is the most IMPORTANT BIT as this highlights the extreme discrimination minorities receive in white countries.
"Professors Mullainathan and Bertrand examined the level of racial discrimination in the labor market by using a randomized field experiment. Nearly 5,000 resumes were sent in response to over 1,300 newspaper ads for sales, administrative, and clerical jobs in Boston and Chicago. Résumés were randomly assigned either a black-sounding name (such as Lakisha Washington or Jamal Jones) or white-sounding name (such as Emily Walsh or Brendan Baker) to imply the applicant's race. Names were chosen according to frequency data obtained from birth certificates of Massachusetts births from 1974 and 1979. The validity of the names' "blackness" or "whiteness" was confirmed by surveys in public areas in Chicago.
Résumés also varied by quality, with higher quality résumés having features such as summer employment experience, school-year employment, volunteering experience, extra computer skills, special honors, or military experience. Two high- and two low-quality résumés were sent to each job opening. The responses of prospective employers were measured according to a given résumé's ability to elicit a call back or e-mail request for an interview.
Impact on Employment: The results of this study indicate that, all other things being equal, race is still an important factor in the American labor market. An African American applicant' s race certainly has negative effects on his employment prospects on average. Resumes with white-sounding names received 50 percent more callbacks than those with black names. But, regional differences are important to note - for example, in Chicago, employers located in black neighborhoods discriminate less against blacks. Based on researchers' estimates, a white name yielded as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience. There were no statistically significant differences in discrimination across the tested occupations, industries, and employers, and the level of discrimination was very similar in both cities. Federal contractors and employers who list "Equal Opportunity Employer" in their ad discriminated as much as other employers.
Some qualities that we might think would level the playing field had minimal effects. For example, there is evidence that the returns to improving credentials for whites are much higher than for blacks. For resumes with white names, higher quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than low quality ones. For resumes with black names, the higher quality resumes did not receive significantly more callbacks. Whites living in richer, more educated, or whiter neighborhoods also have higher callback rates, but blacks do not benefit any more than whites from this neighborhood effect."
Your family may have been hassled by Moroccans which is horrible but these Moroccans being arshholes is more than likely hasn't got anything to do with them being Moroccan but the conditions that they live in.
My parents moved to Thanet before I was born and I was raised there until the age of 14. I and my family received nothing but racial abuse from the white population for all of my 14 years there. We tried to intergrate but we weren't accepted. My mum didn't even wear a hjiab and we all wore western clothes but yet the colour of my skin and my funny sounding name was all that people could see. It subsided until I had an argument with the odd white lad then I'd hear the words P*ki or Ni*ga.
Thanet was also a poor area and still is, it explains why Farage was the MP for that region. He talks to white peoples deepest irrational fears.
My family were forced to move closer to London in a town full of immigrants, here the Polish, Pakistanis, Arabs and Romanians live side by side with whites without any trouble. Multiculturalism isn't the problem, poverty is the problem and living next to the capital which increases the likely hood of being able to make a living also helps integration which is why London voted to remain.
Integration is just the job of the immigrant but it's also the job of the natives to be WELCOMING which in large parts of this country they are not.
You said "Moroccan parents don't correct their children", I could have easily have just answered back and said white people can't control their fecking children either based on my experiences.
There is a lot of hate out there and you are just making it worse.
Oh and I'm not sure which uniform you were wearing in Bosnia but I can give you examples of any Nato country blowing up civilians with indiscriminate weaponry. The rules of engagement seem to change, you can be walking through a village and not be told to shoot until fired upon or you can be in a plane and told to fire on a building that may have civilians inside.
Again we are seeing the left try to circumvent democracy
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312162-nearing-exit-obama-seeks-to-tie-trumps-hands
Trump's a complete maverick. I don't think anyone has a clue as to how the next four years will pan out. Hillary was a safer choice, but a terrible one for other reasons.
The last US Presidential nominee that really got my support was Ron Paul and that was eight years ago.
I think Trump is correct regarding a better relationship with Russia, but his support of Israel is concerning and it may eventually conflict with Russian interests.
Kung Fu
Regarding your last post on minorities and crime rates, I read about an academic study that blindly analysed police figures across the US and found that:
- Black people were more likely to be profiled and investigated than white people under suspicion of having committed a crime
- Having been identified, black people were more likely to be arrested than white people
- Having been arrested, black people were more likely to be prosecuted than white people
- Having been prosecuted, black people were more likely to be incarcerated than white people
- Having been sentenced to a prison term, black people were more likely to be given a longer sentence
Basically, at every conceivable stage in the process the raw data points to an inherently racist system.
I'll find a link to the study and post it here when I get a chance.
comment by rossobianchi - Got_Nameback (U17054)
posted 3 hours, 12 minutes ago
Kung Fu
Regarding your last post on minorities and crime rates, I read about an academic study that blindly analysed police figures across the US and found that:
- Black people were more likely to be profiled and investigated than white people under suspicion of having committed a crime
- Having been identified, black people were more likely to be arrested than white people
- Having been arrested, black people were more likely to be prosecuted than white people
- Having been prosecuted, black people were more likely to be incarcerated than white people
- Having been sentenced to a prison term, black people were more likely to be given a longer sentence
Basically, at every conceivable stage in the process the raw data points to an inherently racist system.
I'll find a link to the study and post it here when I get a chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
People think that racism is dead but it's just been given an acceptable face by the likes of Trump and Farage.
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 1 day, 8 hours ago
comment by thebluebellsareblue (U9292)
posted 9 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by Dude Bro (U1250)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 8 hours, 55 minutes ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 2 minutes ago
Tbh they are all books written by people. Why should people take them so seriously? Some people people kill for them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious books contain a set of values the followers hold dear.
Constitutions hold values that nationalists hold dear.
Both sets of followers kill, it isn't exclusive to religion.
More people have been killed in the name of democracy in recent years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you really need a book to tell you how to live your life?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a good question.
It depends what's in the book and what a set of rules represent.
Being good is subjective. Bin Laden thought he was being good as did George Bush.
People think it's good to join the EDL and keep Britain white and others think it's good to not allow women to drive or go to school.
For me personally the Quran provides me with a moral anchor but don't confuse that with not having your own brain.
I studied my beliefs and approached it with a critical mind, I questioned why people like Bin Laden did the thing he did whilst calling him self a Muslim, I questioned why the Saudi's treat women the way they do and I questioned why honour killings and FGM existed and a lot more.
I found satisfying answers which is why I get frustrated when people assume that a religion says something without knowledge when I and many others have studied and continue to study the depth of religion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are born innocent and we are also given genes to protect our species. We are moral people by and large. No book changes that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said being good is subjective.
I was born here but my background is Moroccan and 95% of my extended family live in that country.
There is now only one country standing in the way of Libya (ravaged by extremists) and Morocco and that's Algeria.
People who put on a British/American military uniform thought they were doing good work by demolishing almost every country between Libya and Iraq and now it's on the door step of my family.
Not only that but if I don't call these men heroes I'm considered to be some kind of extremist by some people.
For me all of that is pure evil, the Islamic rules of engagement tell me that I can't hurt anybody in battle except men of fighting age who are also trying to kill me.
That speaks to me morally and it also allows me to call out those who pretend to be moral but kill innocent civilians.
Collateral damage doesn't exist. Going into a war knowing that innocent people will die isn't honourable it's morally bankrupt.
Others disagree and say it has to happen and then call people who voluntarily do the killing heroes.
So it doesn't really matter if you are born innocent the human brain will be corrupted.
This is one of the reasons why I don't have faith in people, or rules created by men. Although I will abide by them in which ever country I chose to live in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules of engagement I followed in Bosnia were the same. Don't shoot until fired upon, or if your life is in eminent danger. It's not just an Islamic morality thing.
10.6 % of the imprisoned population in the Netherlands, where I am from, is Moroccan, which is the largest group of one foreign nationality. I guess they didn't follow the rules of my country. But Moroccans only count for 2.2% of our population. They are a society in the Netherlands who seemingly not really want to or able to integrate. My sister and her family were terrorised by a group of Moroccan kids as wrte other people in the neighborhood. At some point they had to put camera's up as bricks came flying through my sister's windows. My nephews were terrified. People sold their houses at a loss and left. It went all the way up to the government. Police couldn't do jack sheite. Moroccan parents don't correct their children. It's a facking mess. Later one of the cants died in a police chase. His death was much appreciated I can tell you that much.
All this fuels right wing sentiments in Holland. As it does in all countries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair points, dude.
You can relate to why European's feel mass movement of people into europe is not simply positive or welcome.
It is all about numbers too, as we have to be humane and do the right thing, morally.
Balance is vital.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Has it got to do with Moroccans living in the poorest areas in Holland?
Black people make up 35% of jail inmates in the US and only 12.2% of the entire American population is actually black
"Black Americans were incarcerated in state prisons at an average rate of 5.1 times that of white Americans, the report said, and in some states that rate was 10 times or more. The US is 63.7% non-Hispanic white, 12.2% black, 8.7% Hispanic white and 0.4% Hispanic black, according to the most recent census."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/18/mass-incarceration-black-americans-higher-rates-disparities-report
Does this mean that their is something genetically wrong with black people? Culturally wrong? Or are they just a victims of their environment?
African Americans have the highest poverty rate in the US at 27.4 percent.
"In the Netherlands, twenty percent of Turkish and Moroccan people live below the poverty line — three times more than their white Dutch counterparts."
http://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/resistance-racism-intensifies-netherlands/
"Sixteen percent of non-white Dutch citizens, 28 percent of youth and 40 percent in the most marginalized urban neighborhoods are unemployed, according to the Annual Integration Report in 2013. This is predominantly caused, the report suggests, by racial prejudice among employers."
The same can be said about the black population in America.
https://www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/discrimination-job-market-united-states
"Compared to whites, African Americans are twice as likely to be unemployed, and earn nearly 25 percent less when they are employed"
It goes on and this is the most IMPORTANT BIT as this highlights the extreme discrimination minorities receive in white countries.
"Professors Mullainathan and Bertrand examined the level of racial discrimination in the labor market by using a randomized field experiment. Nearly 5,000 resumes were sent in response to over 1,300 newspaper ads for sales, administrative, and clerical jobs in Boston and Chicago. Résumés were randomly assigned either a black-sounding name (such as Lakisha Washington or Jamal Jones) or white-sounding name (such as Emily Walsh or Brendan Baker) to imply the applicant's race. Names were chosen according to frequency data obtained from birth certificates of Massachusetts births from 1974 and 1979. The validity of the names' "blackness" or "whiteness" was confirmed by surveys in public areas in Chicago.
Résumés also varied by quality, with higher quality résumés having features such as summer employment experience, school-year employment, volunteering experience, extra computer skills, special honors, or military experience. Two high- and two low-quality résumés were sent to each job opening. The responses of prospective employers were measured according to a given résumé's ability to elicit a call back or e-mail request for an interview.
Impact on Employment: The results of this study indicate that, all other things being equal, race is still an important factor in the American labor market. An African American applicant' s race certainly has negative effects on his employment prospects on average. Resumes with white-sounding names received 50 percent more callbacks than those with black names. But, regional differences are important to note - for example, in Chicago, employers located in black neighborhoods discriminate less against blacks. Based on researchers' estimates, a white name yielded as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience. There were no statistically significant differences in discrimination across the tested occupations, industries, and employers, and the level of discrimination was very similar in both cities. Federal contractors and employers who list "Equal Opportunity Employer" in their ad discriminated as much as other employers.
Some qualities that we might think would level the playing field had minimal effects. For example, there is evidence that the returns to improving credentials for whites are much higher than for blacks. For resumes with white names, higher quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than low quality ones. For resumes with black names, the higher quality resumes did not receive significantly more callbacks. Whites living in richer, more educated, or whiter neighborhoods also have higher callback rates, but blacks do not benefit any more than whites from this neighborhood effect."
Your family may have been hassled by Moroccans which is horrible but these Moroccans being arshholes is more than likely hasn't got anything to do with them being Moroccan but the conditions that they live in.
My parents moved to Thanet before I was born and I was raised there until the age of 14. I and my family received nothing but racial abuse from the white population for all of my 14 years there. We tried to intergrate but we weren't accepted. My mum didn't even wear a hjiab and we all wore western clothes but yet the colour of my skin and my funny sounding name was all that people could see. It subsided until I had an argument with the odd white lad then I'd hear the words P*ki or Ni*ga.
Thanet was also a poor area and still is, it explains why Farage was the MP for that region. He talks to white peoples deepest irrational fears.
My family were forced to move closer to London in a town full of immigrants, here the Polish, Pakistanis, Arabs and Romanians live side by side with whites without any trouble. Multiculturalism isn't the problem, poverty is the problem and living next to the capital which increases the likely hood of being able to make a living also helps integration which is why London voted to remain.
Integration is just the job of the immigrant but it's also the job of the natives to be WELCOMING which in large parts of this country they are not.
You said "Moroccan parents don't correct their children", I could have easily have just answered back and said white people can't control their fecking children either based on my experiences.
There is a lot of hate out there and you are just making it worse.
Oh and I'm not sure which uniform you were wearing in Bosnia but I can give you examples of any Nato country blowing up civilians with indiscriminate weaponry. The rules of engagement seem to change, you can be walking through a village and not be told to shoot until fired upon or you can be in a plane and told to fire on a building that may have civilians inside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 4 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi - Got_Nameback (U17054)
posted 3 hours, 12 minutes ago
Kung Fu
Regarding your last post on minorities and crime rates, I read about an academic study that blindly analysed police figures across the US and found that:
- Black people were more likely to be profiled and investigated than white people under suspicion of having committed a crime
- Having been identified, black people were more likely to be arrested than white people
- Having been arrested, black people were more likely to be prosecuted than white people
- Having been prosecuted, black people were more likely to be incarcerated than white people
- Having been sentenced to a prison term, black people were more likely to be given a longer sentence
Basically, at every conceivable stage in the process the raw data points to an inherently racist system.
I'll find a link to the study and post it here when I get a chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
People think that racism is dead but it's just been given an acceptable face by the likes of Trump and Farage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rossi, please do post the paper if you can. I wish I could say those results were surprising. I think few will honesty find them revealing because similar stuff has been reported before.
That said, I regret not having enough knowledge of statistics to be able to properly discern when a set of results is truly reliable and when not. The most I can do, on occasion, is run them by my partner who does have a good grasp of statistics.
Considering the number of years spent at school learning maths, it's a shame we're not given a better grasp of statistics - not necessarily statistical calculation, but at least of how to interpret results.
As it is, all too often (as in my own case with the results you print), we will accept results as being more valid when they fit our preconceivd opinions, and tend to reject them more when they're not.
As a consequence, we become incredibly easy to manipulate, even without politicians plucking totally made-up figures out of thin air. Which they do.
On second thoughts, bearing in mind that last bit, does all this really matter? Do politicians really need to prove anything nowadays, or do they just have to croon to people's innermost thoughts and desires?
Easy to blame whitey and racism for everything.
No responsibility needs to be taken.
And in vast parts of the world where whitey doesn't reside or govern.....?????????
Sign in if you want to comment
trump supporters
Page 13 of 15
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
posted on 31/12/16
Sky, I was out shopping. It's the definition of late term abortion that Trump and the republicans in general deliberately misinterpreted and has then been falsely disseminated by the media.
Late term abortion is not up to 40 weeks, it is up to the point where the foetus is classed as being able to live outside of the womb. All Clintons position is is the same as the legal precedent, which is exactly that and only abortions after that if there is a significant risk to the mothers life.
One of your links (the USA today one) has even proven it wrong yourself. I'll quote directly from it -
“There are no nine-month abortions,” Gunter said. There are situations in which labor is induced because of problems in the last month of pregnancy, but “at 38 or 39 weeks it’s always an induction and is simply called a delivery," she said."
It is obscenely ridiculous to suggest that support is there for what you are insinuating.
posted on 31/12/16
You yourself stated you think there ought to be exceptions (e.g. rape)
-------------------------------------
What I said was I concede there may be a need to allow some exceptional circumstances. It doesnt mean I like it. Even with rape where it is the child of a vile monster and a victim who may not want the monsters child growing inside them, that child would live if the mother went through to birth. I can accept there may be serious psycological issues for the mother and you may have to allow the abortion, but my far preferred solution is for the child to be given up for adoption if they cant cope with keeping it themselves. I know someone who brought up a child as a result of rape.
posted on 31/12/16
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
Sky, I was out shopping. It's the definition of late term abortion that Trump and the republicans in general deliberately misinterpreted and has then been falsely disseminated by the media.
Late term abortion is not up to 40 weeks, it is up to the point where the foetus is classed as being able to live outside of the womb. All Clintons position is is the same as the legal precedent, which is exactly that and only abortions after that if there is a significant risk to the mothers life.
One of your links (the USA today one) has even proven it wrong yourself. I'll quote directly from it -
“There are no nine-month abortions,” Gunter said. There are situations in which labor is induced because of problems in the last month of pregnancy, but “at 38 or 39 weeks it’s always an induction and is simply called a delivery," she said."
It is obscenely ridiculous to suggest that support is there for what you are insinuating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I totallly accept a lot of the information in modern politics is propeganda and lies. Thats why I dont take much at face value. I have seen a video of Clinton saying she supports up to birth abortion where the mothers life is at risk. The problem is defining what that means and one of the articles I posted spoke about that. All it takes is for a mother to say the thought of having a baby makes them suicidal. Clinton in her speech said she would allow that as reason for abortion. Whats to stop them lying to get permission for an abortion?
A quick google search brought up this lot. Make of it what you will.
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=clinton%20support%20up%20to%20birth%20abortion
posted on 31/12/16
With that last post, you need to look at the ones relating to her speech on 19th October 2016.
posted on 31/12/16
I just had a nother look at that while waiting to see if there is a repsonse. I notice the posts before 19th October all say those claims are a lie and themn BOOM, she makes a speech supporting exactly what had been denied.
posted on 31/12/16
"All it takes is for a mother to say the thought of having a baby makes them suicidal. Clinton in her speech said she would allow that as reason for abortion."
No she didn't at all, you are just making this up. Have you actually bothered to watch the presidential debate?
posted on 31/12/16
This is the exact transcript of what she said -
"I have met with women who toward the end of their pregnancy get the worst news one could get, that their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term or that something terrible has happened or just been discovered about the pregnancy. I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions. So you can regulate if you are doing so with the life and the health of the mother taken into account."
posted on 31/12/16
Unfortunately there is so much misinformation on the web that only political junkies can make somewhat informed choices these days. As they say 'democracy is a great idea if it wasn't for the people'.
posted on 31/12/16
I have to ask, are you wumming here as you are putting up links that contradict your own position.
"As they say 'democracy is a great idea if it wasn't for the people'."
I was just thinking of exactly that statement.
posted on 31/12/16
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
I have to ask, are you wumming here as you are putting up links that contradict your own position.
"As they say 'democracy is a great idea if it wasn't for the people'."
I was just thinking of exactly that statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Im deliberately putting up links that dont look like they are wrotten with my point of view. There is infomration in them to support what I am saying though and if those links dont deny it. For example someone posted a quote saying abortion doesnt happen in the last 2 weeks of pregnancy, but (I cant remember if it was the same one or another link I posted) it says they call abortion in the last 2 weeks of pregnancy a "delivery", even if it involves killing the baby. It is only not abortion in name only.
Its been a while since I have looked at much of this stuff in detail so a lot of what I am posting is from memory. I can understand if I have not given the best representation of all the facts, but over the years I have seen so much informatin on this subject I have no doubt that what I am saying is correct. Searching through to find proper evidence nicluding videos of the people in questin saying this stuff would take a trained journalist weeks. I dont think I've done too ba in a few minutes here and there today.
posted on 31/12/16
I live by a simple principle as a man. While the baby is inside a woman it is her prerogative as a mother to make decisions over her own body.
posted on 31/12/16
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 minute ago
I live by a simple principle as a man. While the baby is inside a woman it is her prerogative as a mother to make decisions over her own body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, us fellas will never know what it's like so it's not really down to us to dictate what should or shouldn't happen.
Walk a mile in another persons shoes and all that.
posted on 31/12/16
"Im deliberately putting up links that dont look like they are wrotten with my point of view. There is infomration in them to support what I am saying though"
No there really isn't. Directly quote one link that you think backs up what you think either Clintons position or the law is currently.
It takes absolutely no time at all, all you need to do is read the Roe vs Wade case and watch the presidential debate.
"For example someone posted a quote saying abortion doesnt happen in the last 2 weeks of pregnancy, but (I cant remember if it was the same one or another link I posted) it says they call abortion in the last 2 weeks of pregnancy a "delivery", even if it involves killing the baby. It is only not abortion in name only."
?!?! It's called a Caesarian and doesn't involve killing the baby, hence it being called a delivery was the exact point that doctor was making.
I'm done I'm afraid. You are either wumming or have a non existent grasp of basic comprehension. If it's the former, I'm not interested. If it's the latter, then I fear that any attempts I make to correct that over an Internet forum will be in vain considering years of schooling clearly haven't had much impact.
posted on 31/12/16
I could say you have been brainwashed by the left wing establishment to accept what they say without question. I have over the years had friends with a huge variety of views from self confessed left wing extremists to members of the National Front, Jews and Muslims, pro-life to pro-choice. I have heard all sorts of allegations, conspiracy theories, etc, most of which are far from convincing. The stuff on the Clintons going back to before Bill was President is one of the more convincing ones, including a long history of ther support for abortion up to birth whcih goes back to at least about 2003. I have seen documentaries of people exposing what happens in the abortion industry and it is shocking. One even claimed to have cut the beating heart out of a fetus without the parents permisssion so it could be sold for research. I cant say that its definitely true, just that they said it was and were convincing in their show of emotion when talking about it.
I dont really care if someone on an internet forum believes it or not, that is your choice. All I can say is over a number of years I have seen a lot of things to convince me of all sorts of things, but most I have dismissed as not having sufficient evidence to even entertain the idea. What I would say to you is learn to inverstigate things for yourself and dont just accept things because someone in authority told you to. There is usually an agenda behind everything.
posted on 31/12/16
Iag, is there any chance you're confusing 'term' pregnancy with the concept of 'at birth'?
posted on 31/12/16
Hold on, maybe it's me who's confusing terms here.
Just reading'term' is considered as of 37 weeks; I thought it was much earlier than that.
posted on 31/12/16
comment by Mourinho delenda est (U6426)
posted 32 seconds ago
Hold on, maybe it's me who's confusing terms here.
Just reading'term' is considered as of 37 weeks; I thought it was much earlier than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are probably thinking of 24 weeks that the NHS allows abortions up to. Babies have survived outside of the womb at less than 22 weeks.
I guess what a lot of this boils down to is when you think the baby is a living person. For me it is at conception after which point it will grow from a fertilised egg to a fetus, from a fetus to a baby, from a baby to a toddler, then to a child, youth, adult, middle age and ild age hopefully. I dont see the distinction at any point of life. If you choose to believe that life can be ended at any time for whatever reason is up to you, but I dont have to agree with it.
posted on 31/12/16
comment by thebluebellsareblue (U9292)
posted 9 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by Dude Bro (U1250)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 8 hours, 55 minutes ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 2 minutes ago
Tbh they are all books written by people. Why should people take them so seriously? Some people people kill for them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious books contain a set of values the followers hold dear.
Constitutions hold values that nationalists hold dear.
Both sets of followers kill, it isn't exclusive to religion.
More people have been killed in the name of democracy in recent years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you really need a book to tell you how to live your life?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a good question.
It depends what's in the book and what a set of rules represent.
Being good is subjective. Bin Laden thought he was being good as did George Bush.
People think it's good to join the EDL and keep Britain white and others think it's good to not allow women to drive or go to school.
For me personally the Quran provides me with a moral anchor but don't confuse that with not having your own brain.
I studied my beliefs and approached it with a critical mind, I questioned why people like Bin Laden did the thing he did whilst calling him self a Muslim, I questioned why the Saudi's treat women the way they do and I questioned why honour killings and FGM existed and a lot more.
I found satisfying answers which is why I get frustrated when people assume that a religion says something without knowledge when I and many others have studied and continue to study the depth of religion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are born innocent and we are also given genes to protect our species. We are moral people by and large. No book changes that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said being good is subjective.
I was born here but my background is Moroccan and 95% of my extended family live in that country.
There is now only one country standing in the way of Libya (ravaged by extremists) and Morocco and that's Algeria.
People who put on a British/American military uniform thought they were doing good work by demolishing almost every country between Libya and Iraq and now it's on the door step of my family.
Not only that but if I don't call these men heroes I'm considered to be some kind of extremist by some people.
For me all of that is pure evil, the Islamic rules of engagement tell me that I can't hurt anybody in battle except men of fighting age who are also trying to kill me.
That speaks to me morally and it also allows me to call out those who pretend to be moral but kill innocent civilians.
Collateral damage doesn't exist. Going into a war knowing that innocent people will die isn't honourable it's morally bankrupt.
Others disagree and say it has to happen and then call people who voluntarily do the killing heroes.
So it doesn't really matter if you are born innocent the human brain will be corrupted.
This is one of the reasons why I don't have faith in people, or rules created by men. Although I will abide by them in which ever country I chose to live in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules of engagement I followed in Bosnia were the same. Don't shoot until fired upon, or if your life is in eminent danger. It's not just an Islamic morality thing.
10.6 % of the imprisoned population in the Netherlands, where I am from, is Moroccan, which is the largest group of one foreign nationality. I guess they didn't follow the rules of my country. But Moroccans only count for 2.2% of our population. They are a society in the Netherlands who seemingly not really want to or able to integrate. My sister and her family were terrorised by a group of Moroccan kids as wrte other people in the neighborhood. At some point they had to put camera's up as bricks came flying through my sister's windows. My nephews were terrified. People sold their houses at a loss and left. It went all the way up to the government. Police couldn't do jack sheite. Moroccan parents don't correct their children. It's a facking mess. Later one of the cants died in a police chase. His death was much appreciated I can tell you that much.
All this fuels right wing sentiments in Holland. As it does in all countries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair points, dude.
You can relate to why European's feel mass movement of people into europe is not simply positive or welcome.
It is all about numbers too, as we have to be humane and do the right thing, morally.
Balance is vital.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Has it got to do with Moroccans living in the poorest areas in Holland?
Black people make up 35% of jail inmates in the US and only 12.2% of the entire American population is actually black
"Black Americans were incarcerated in state prisons at an average rate of 5.1 times that of white Americans, the report said, and in some states that rate was 10 times or more. The US is 63.7% non-Hispanic white, 12.2% black, 8.7% Hispanic white and 0.4% Hispanic black, according to the most recent census."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/18/mass-incarceration-black-americans-higher-rates-disparities-report
Does this mean that their is something genetically wrong with black people? Culturally wrong? Or are they just a victims of their environment?
African Americans have the highest poverty rate in the US at 27.4 percent.
"In the Netherlands, twenty percent of Turkish and Moroccan people live below the poverty line — three times more than their white Dutch counterparts."
http://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/resistance-racism-intensifies-netherlands/
"Sixteen percent of non-white Dutch citizens, 28 percent of youth and 40 percent in the most marginalized urban neighborhoods are unemployed, according to the Annual Integration Report in 2013. This is predominantly caused, the report suggests, by racial prejudice among employers."
The same can be said about the black population in America.
https://www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/discrimination-job-market-united-states
"Compared to whites, African Americans are twice as likely to be unemployed, and earn nearly 25 percent less when they are employed"
It goes on and this is the most IMPORTANT BIT as this highlights the extreme discrimination minorities receive in white countries.
"Professors Mullainathan and Bertrand examined the level of racial discrimination in the labor market by using a randomized field experiment. Nearly 5,000 resumes were sent in response to over 1,300 newspaper ads for sales, administrative, and clerical jobs in Boston and Chicago. Résumés were randomly assigned either a black-sounding name (such as Lakisha Washington or Jamal Jones) or white-sounding name (such as Emily Walsh or Brendan Baker) to imply the applicant's race. Names were chosen according to frequency data obtained from birth certificates of Massachusetts births from 1974 and 1979. The validity of the names' "blackness" or "whiteness" was confirmed by surveys in public areas in Chicago.
Résumés also varied by quality, with higher quality résumés having features such as summer employment experience, school-year employment, volunteering experience, extra computer skills, special honors, or military experience. Two high- and two low-quality résumés were sent to each job opening. The responses of prospective employers were measured according to a given résumé's ability to elicit a call back or e-mail request for an interview.
Impact on Employment: The results of this study indicate that, all other things being equal, race is still an important factor in the American labor market. An African American applicant' s race certainly has negative effects on his employment prospects on average. Resumes with white-sounding names received 50 percent more callbacks than those with black names. But, regional differences are important to note - for example, in Chicago, employers located in black neighborhoods discriminate less against blacks. Based on researchers' estimates, a white name yielded as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience. There were no statistically significant differences in discrimination across the tested occupations, industries, and employers, and the level of discrimination was very similar in both cities. Federal contractors and employers who list "Equal Opportunity Employer" in their ad discriminated as much as other employers.
Some qualities that we might think would level the playing field had minimal effects. For example, there is evidence that the returns to improving credentials for whites are much higher than for blacks. For resumes with white names, higher quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than low quality ones. For resumes with black names, the higher quality resumes did not receive significantly more callbacks. Whites living in richer, more educated, or whiter neighborhoods also have higher callback rates, but blacks do not benefit any more than whites from this neighborhood effect."
Your family may have been hassled by Moroccans which is horrible but these Moroccans being arshholes is more than likely hasn't got anything to do with them being Moroccan but the conditions that they live in.
My parents moved to Thanet before I was born and I was raised there until the age of 14. I and my family received nothing but racial abuse from the white population for all of my 14 years there. We tried to intergrate but we weren't accepted. My mum didn't even wear a hjiab and we all wore western clothes but yet the colour of my skin and my funny sounding name was all that people could see. It subsided until I had an argument with the odd white lad then I'd hear the words P*ki or Ni*ga.
Thanet was also a poor area and still is, it explains why Farage was the MP for that region. He talks to white peoples deepest irrational fears.
My family were forced to move closer to London in a town full of immigrants, here the Polish, Pakistanis, Arabs and Romanians live side by side with whites without any trouble. Multiculturalism isn't the problem, poverty is the problem and living next to the capital which increases the likely hood of being able to make a living also helps integration which is why London voted to remain.
Integration is just the job of the immigrant but it's also the job of the natives to be WELCOMING which in large parts of this country they are not.
You said "Moroccan parents don't correct their children", I could have easily have just answered back and said white people can't control their fecking children either based on my experiences.
There is a lot of hate out there and you are just making it worse.
Oh and I'm not sure which uniform you were wearing in Bosnia but I can give you examples of any Nato country blowing up civilians with indiscriminate weaponry. The rules of engagement seem to change, you can be walking through a village and not be told to shoot until fired upon or you can be in a plane and told to fire on a building that may have civilians inside.
posted on 31/12/16
Again we are seeing the left try to circumvent democracy
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312162-nearing-exit-obama-seeks-to-tie-trumps-hands
posted on 1/1/17
Trump's a complete maverick. I don't think anyone has a clue as to how the next four years will pan out. Hillary was a safer choice, but a terrible one for other reasons.
The last US Presidential nominee that really got my support was Ron Paul and that was eight years ago.
I think Trump is correct regarding a better relationship with Russia, but his support of Israel is concerning and it may eventually conflict with Russian interests.
posted on 2/1/17
Kung Fu
Regarding your last post on minorities and crime rates, I read about an academic study that blindly analysed police figures across the US and found that:
- Black people were more likely to be profiled and investigated than white people under suspicion of having committed a crime
- Having been identified, black people were more likely to be arrested than white people
- Having been arrested, black people were more likely to be prosecuted than white people
- Having been prosecuted, black people were more likely to be incarcerated than white people
- Having been sentenced to a prison term, black people were more likely to be given a longer sentence
Basically, at every conceivable stage in the process the raw data points to an inherently racist system.
I'll find a link to the study and post it here when I get a chance.
posted on 2/1/17
comment by rossobianchi - Got_Nameback (U17054)
posted 3 hours, 12 minutes ago
Kung Fu
Regarding your last post on minorities and crime rates, I read about an academic study that blindly analysed police figures across the US and found that:
- Black people were more likely to be profiled and investigated than white people under suspicion of having committed a crime
- Having been identified, black people were more likely to be arrested than white people
- Having been arrested, black people were more likely to be prosecuted than white people
- Having been prosecuted, black people were more likely to be incarcerated than white people
- Having been sentenced to a prison term, black people were more likely to be given a longer sentence
Basically, at every conceivable stage in the process the raw data points to an inherently racist system.
I'll find a link to the study and post it here when I get a chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
People think that racism is dead but it's just been given an acceptable face by the likes of Trump and Farage.
posted on 2/1/17
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 1 day, 8 hours ago
comment by thebluebellsareblue (U9292)
posted 9 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by Dude Bro (U1250)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 8 hours, 55 minutes ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 2 minutes ago
Tbh they are all books written by people. Why should people take them so seriously? Some people people kill for them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious books contain a set of values the followers hold dear.
Constitutions hold values that nationalists hold dear.
Both sets of followers kill, it isn't exclusive to religion.
More people have been killed in the name of democracy in recent years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you really need a book to tell you how to live your life?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a good question.
It depends what's in the book and what a set of rules represent.
Being good is subjective. Bin Laden thought he was being good as did George Bush.
People think it's good to join the EDL and keep Britain white and others think it's good to not allow women to drive or go to school.
For me personally the Quran provides me with a moral anchor but don't confuse that with not having your own brain.
I studied my beliefs and approached it with a critical mind, I questioned why people like Bin Laden did the thing he did whilst calling him self a Muslim, I questioned why the Saudi's treat women the way they do and I questioned why honour killings and FGM existed and a lot more.
I found satisfying answers which is why I get frustrated when people assume that a religion says something without knowledge when I and many others have studied and continue to study the depth of religion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are born innocent and we are also given genes to protect our species. We are moral people by and large. No book changes that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said being good is subjective.
I was born here but my background is Moroccan and 95% of my extended family live in that country.
There is now only one country standing in the way of Libya (ravaged by extremists) and Morocco and that's Algeria.
People who put on a British/American military uniform thought they were doing good work by demolishing almost every country between Libya and Iraq and now it's on the door step of my family.
Not only that but if I don't call these men heroes I'm considered to be some kind of extremist by some people.
For me all of that is pure evil, the Islamic rules of engagement tell me that I can't hurt anybody in battle except men of fighting age who are also trying to kill me.
That speaks to me morally and it also allows me to call out those who pretend to be moral but kill innocent civilians.
Collateral damage doesn't exist. Going into a war knowing that innocent people will die isn't honourable it's morally bankrupt.
Others disagree and say it has to happen and then call people who voluntarily do the killing heroes.
So it doesn't really matter if you are born innocent the human brain will be corrupted.
This is one of the reasons why I don't have faith in people, or rules created by men. Although I will abide by them in which ever country I chose to live in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules of engagement I followed in Bosnia were the same. Don't shoot until fired upon, or if your life is in eminent danger. It's not just an Islamic morality thing.
10.6 % of the imprisoned population in the Netherlands, where I am from, is Moroccan, which is the largest group of one foreign nationality. I guess they didn't follow the rules of my country. But Moroccans only count for 2.2% of our population. They are a society in the Netherlands who seemingly not really want to or able to integrate. My sister and her family were terrorised by a group of Moroccan kids as wrte other people in the neighborhood. At some point they had to put camera's up as bricks came flying through my sister's windows. My nephews were terrified. People sold their houses at a loss and left. It went all the way up to the government. Police couldn't do jack sheite. Moroccan parents don't correct their children. It's a facking mess. Later one of the cants died in a police chase. His death was much appreciated I can tell you that much.
All this fuels right wing sentiments in Holland. As it does in all countries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair points, dude.
You can relate to why European's feel mass movement of people into europe is not simply positive or welcome.
It is all about numbers too, as we have to be humane and do the right thing, morally.
Balance is vital.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Has it got to do with Moroccans living in the poorest areas in Holland?
Black people make up 35% of jail inmates in the US and only 12.2% of the entire American population is actually black
"Black Americans were incarcerated in state prisons at an average rate of 5.1 times that of white Americans, the report said, and in some states that rate was 10 times or more. The US is 63.7% non-Hispanic white, 12.2% black, 8.7% Hispanic white and 0.4% Hispanic black, according to the most recent census."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/18/mass-incarceration-black-americans-higher-rates-disparities-report
Does this mean that their is something genetically wrong with black people? Culturally wrong? Or are they just a victims of their environment?
African Americans have the highest poverty rate in the US at 27.4 percent.
"In the Netherlands, twenty percent of Turkish and Moroccan people live below the poverty line — three times more than their white Dutch counterparts."
http://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/resistance-racism-intensifies-netherlands/
"Sixteen percent of non-white Dutch citizens, 28 percent of youth and 40 percent in the most marginalized urban neighborhoods are unemployed, according to the Annual Integration Report in 2013. This is predominantly caused, the report suggests, by racial prejudice among employers."
The same can be said about the black population in America.
https://www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/discrimination-job-market-united-states
"Compared to whites, African Americans are twice as likely to be unemployed, and earn nearly 25 percent less when they are employed"
It goes on and this is the most IMPORTANT BIT as this highlights the extreme discrimination minorities receive in white countries.
"Professors Mullainathan and Bertrand examined the level of racial discrimination in the labor market by using a randomized field experiment. Nearly 5,000 resumes were sent in response to over 1,300 newspaper ads for sales, administrative, and clerical jobs in Boston and Chicago. Résumés were randomly assigned either a black-sounding name (such as Lakisha Washington or Jamal Jones) or white-sounding name (such as Emily Walsh or Brendan Baker) to imply the applicant's race. Names were chosen according to frequency data obtained from birth certificates of Massachusetts births from 1974 and 1979. The validity of the names' "blackness" or "whiteness" was confirmed by surveys in public areas in Chicago.
Résumés also varied by quality, with higher quality résumés having features such as summer employment experience, school-year employment, volunteering experience, extra computer skills, special honors, or military experience. Two high- and two low-quality résumés were sent to each job opening. The responses of prospective employers were measured according to a given résumé's ability to elicit a call back or e-mail request for an interview.
Impact on Employment: The results of this study indicate that, all other things being equal, race is still an important factor in the American labor market. An African American applicant' s race certainly has negative effects on his employment prospects on average. Resumes with white-sounding names received 50 percent more callbacks than those with black names. But, regional differences are important to note - for example, in Chicago, employers located in black neighborhoods discriminate less against blacks. Based on researchers' estimates, a white name yielded as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience. There were no statistically significant differences in discrimination across the tested occupations, industries, and employers, and the level of discrimination was very similar in both cities. Federal contractors and employers who list "Equal Opportunity Employer" in their ad discriminated as much as other employers.
Some qualities that we might think would level the playing field had minimal effects. For example, there is evidence that the returns to improving credentials for whites are much higher than for blacks. For resumes with white names, higher quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than low quality ones. For resumes with black names, the higher quality resumes did not receive significantly more callbacks. Whites living in richer, more educated, or whiter neighborhoods also have higher callback rates, but blacks do not benefit any more than whites from this neighborhood effect."
Your family may have been hassled by Moroccans which is horrible but these Moroccans being arshholes is more than likely hasn't got anything to do with them being Moroccan but the conditions that they live in.
My parents moved to Thanet before I was born and I was raised there until the age of 14. I and my family received nothing but racial abuse from the white population for all of my 14 years there. We tried to intergrate but we weren't accepted. My mum didn't even wear a hjiab and we all wore western clothes but yet the colour of my skin and my funny sounding name was all that people could see. It subsided until I had an argument with the odd white lad then I'd hear the words P*ki or Ni*ga.
Thanet was also a poor area and still is, it explains why Farage was the MP for that region. He talks to white peoples deepest irrational fears.
My family were forced to move closer to London in a town full of immigrants, here the Polish, Pakistanis, Arabs and Romanians live side by side with whites without any trouble. Multiculturalism isn't the problem, poverty is the problem and living next to the capital which increases the likely hood of being able to make a living also helps integration which is why London voted to remain.
Integration is just the job of the immigrant but it's also the job of the natives to be WELCOMING which in large parts of this country they are not.
You said "Moroccan parents don't correct their children", I could have easily have just answered back and said white people can't control their fecking children either based on my experiences.
There is a lot of hate out there and you are just making it worse.
Oh and I'm not sure which uniform you were wearing in Bosnia but I can give you examples of any Nato country blowing up civilians with indiscriminate weaponry. The rules of engagement seem to change, you can be walking through a village and not be told to shoot until fired upon or you can be in a plane and told to fire on a building that may have civilians inside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow
posted on 2/1/17
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 4 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi - Got_Nameback (U17054)
posted 3 hours, 12 minutes ago
Kung Fu
Regarding your last post on minorities and crime rates, I read about an academic study that blindly analysed police figures across the US and found that:
- Black people were more likely to be profiled and investigated than white people under suspicion of having committed a crime
- Having been identified, black people were more likely to be arrested than white people
- Having been arrested, black people were more likely to be prosecuted than white people
- Having been prosecuted, black people were more likely to be incarcerated than white people
- Having been sentenced to a prison term, black people were more likely to be given a longer sentence
Basically, at every conceivable stage in the process the raw data points to an inherently racist system.
I'll find a link to the study and post it here when I get a chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
People think that racism is dead but it's just been given an acceptable face by the likes of Trump and Farage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rossi, please do post the paper if you can. I wish I could say those results were surprising. I think few will honesty find them revealing because similar stuff has been reported before.
That said, I regret not having enough knowledge of statistics to be able to properly discern when a set of results is truly reliable and when not. The most I can do, on occasion, is run them by my partner who does have a good grasp of statistics.
Considering the number of years spent at school learning maths, it's a shame we're not given a better grasp of statistics - not necessarily statistical calculation, but at least of how to interpret results.
As it is, all too often (as in my own case with the results you print), we will accept results as being more valid when they fit our preconceivd opinions, and tend to reject them more when they're not.
As a consequence, we become incredibly easy to manipulate, even without politicians plucking totally made-up figures out of thin air. Which they do.
On second thoughts, bearing in mind that last bit, does all this really matter? Do politicians really need to prove anything nowadays, or do they just have to croon to people's innermost thoughts and desires?
posted on 2/1/17
Easy to blame whitey and racism for everything.
No responsibility needs to be taken.
And in vast parts of the world where whitey doesn't reside or govern.....?????????
Page 13 of 15
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15