iebamm2580 wrote: » Look, snake has put you in your place with his facts and now you are turning the whole argument onto me because you cannot argue with what snake posted, if you think im going to take the time to go and post stats from the uk media no thanks. Btw what do you think of the stats that snake posted?
Captain Obvious wrote: » SnakePlissken wrote: » Perhaps he's a bigot... or maybe, and this might be a stretch, but as 75% of all gang rapes and grooming gangs in the UK hail from a pool of just 3% of the overall population, This is completely false. 75% of gang rapes are not committed from among 3% of the population and there is no legitimate source that claims that. What the stats do say is that Asian males are more likely to be involved in a particular kind of crime, that crime being grooming, yet their overall representation on the sex offenders register is proportional to the number in the country. Also, Asians make up 8%, not 3%.https://fullfact.org/crime/what-do-we-know-about-ethnicity-people-involved-sexual-offences-against-children/ SnakePlissken wrote: » You of course have provable statistics to verify this? Please feel free to share them with the rest of us. I've already said what my claim is based on. You can take it or leave it. You won't find official stats either way so you can happily believe whatever racist nonsense you've made up about Ireland.
SnakePlissken wrote: » Perhaps he's a bigot... or maybe, and this might be a stretch, but as 75% of all gang rapes and grooming gangs in the UK hail from a pool of just 3% of the overall population,
SnakePlissken wrote: » You of course have provable statistics to verify this? Please feel free to share them with the rest of us.
Grayson wrote: » iebamm2580 wrote: » You dont need to have EXACT stats to be correct on a particular subject matter either thats all im saying, you seem like one of those people who takes everything literal. You kind of do. You make a statement, it may be true it may be false, but we won't know unless it'd backed up with some kind of stat or reference. As for saying it's common knowledge, I'm sure people could bring up thousands of examples where what was common knowledge was incorrect.
iebamm2580 wrote: » You dont need to have EXACT stats to be correct on a particular subject matter either thats all im saying, you seem like one of those people who takes everything literal.
iebamm2580 wrote: » I wont go into this any further either just dont take things so literal, all people have different ways of saying things you could have asked me to clarify rather than jumping to conclusions like some posters calling me a bigot.
Gwen Cooper wrote: » iebamm2580 wrote: » You dont need to have EXACT stats to be correct on a particular subject matter either thats all im saying, you seem like one of those people who takes everything literal. This is my last response to you, because talking to you is worse than talking to a brick wall. You're throwing around expressions that mean different things, saying that that's what you meant. I recommend reading more books, it's supposed to help with extending your vocabulary. This should eliminate having these issues in the future - you will be able to express yourself more accurately.
Gwen Cooper wrote: » What is there to address? We were asking for stats, he provided stats. There's nothing to argue about.
Rory28 wrote: » So are we just going to pick apart iebamms comments or are any of you going to address Snakes comment?
iebamm2580 wrote: » Jesus, you dont need to have exact stats to be correct or to form an opinion that happens to be correct, how do some of ye go about the day interacting with people if you cant have an opinion unless you check google first.
Gwen Cooper wrote: » iebamm2580 wrote: » As part of my common knowledge, everybody has different common knowledge you know. I havethat particular knowledge from my college education. .....you do know that common knowledge has the word 'common' in it, right? As in... it's common?
iebamm2580 wrote: » As part of my common knowledge, everybody has different common knowledge you know. I havethat particular knowledge from my college education.
Grayson wrote: » iebamm2580 wrote: » OMG you are mental if you thought that. How? you brought skin cancer into it.
iebamm2580 wrote: » OMG you are mental if you thought that.
iebamm2580 wrote: » Common Knowledge is a phrase i personally use dont take it so literally, i say it when i know general stats of the issue, didn't post exact stats as i had not got them on hand. Simple as that this is a pointless argument now.
Gwen Cooper wrote: » Yes, yes you do. Until you have numbers to support your statement, it's just something you heard. Growing up in Eastern Europe, I was always told that I should avoid all black people. Then later this changed to avoiding all Muslims because it's common knowledge that they will rape me/cut my head off. Where I come from, this is "common knowledge". Except it's wrong. National ignorant bias don't make the statement true.
Grayson wrote: » iebamm2580 wrote: » Sorry i didnt have exaxt stats you are right but yes i had heard about the 12% rate in the uk from a 3% muslim population. You dont have to have stats to know that irish people like a drink or we have high cases of skin cancer its common knowledge as i would say. I could be right and not a bigot im sure you would agree. Are you comparing a genetic predisposition to skin cancer to rape? Are you actually saying it's genetic?
iebamm2580 wrote: » Sorry i didnt have exaxt stats you are right but yes i had heard about the 12% rate in the uk from a 3% muslim population. You dont have to have stats to know that irish people like a drink or we have high cases of skin cancer its common knowledge as i would say. I could be right and not a bigot im sure you would agree.
italodisco wrote: » Willing to bet a substantial figure that the 3 lads were Brazilian. Dublin is certainly overrun with them at the Mo, absolutely no benefit to our economy, they come in as students with letters from English language schools they'll never actually attend and end up cycling rickshaws. Oh, and there's been a few of them done for rape here already... Anyone care to make a wager
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » SnakePlissken wrote: » Except it's not, and let's be clear here, I'm not talking about hearsay or gossip or which cases are written about in the Red Tops and which ones that aren't, I'm referencing conviction rates, provable statistics that only a buffoon would argue against, and they are as follows; Muslim men account for only 3% of the entire mainland UK population, and yet Muslim men are responsible for 12% of all convictions relating to sexual abuse of any type, and 75% of convictions for grooming and abuse relating to more than one attacker. So no Princess Consulela, it's not bull****, these statistics are damning, and very, very real. You misunderstand - when I said it's bull****, I was referring to his knowledge on the subject. He openly stated he didn't know and then said he had common knowledge - one of those statements has to be bull****: either he has done research and he knows, or he has not and does not. Again - I'm not saying he;s wrong and I'm not saying you're wrong - you at least appear to have done some research. He hasn't.
SnakePlissken wrote: » Except it's not, and let's be clear here, I'm not talking about hearsay or gossip or which cases are written about in the Red Tops and which ones that aren't, I'm referencing conviction rates, provable statistics that only a buffoon would argue against, and they are as follows; Muslim men account for only 3% of the entire mainland UK population, and yet Muslim men are responsible for 12% of all convictions relating to sexual abuse of any type, and 75% of convictions for grooming and abuse relating to more than one attacker. So no Princess Consulela, it's not bull****, these statistics are damning, and very, very real.
