I said, to Agis:
He replied:
In other words, you were wrong and you just don’t want to admit it. Well, that’s just too bad, isn’t it? When you come to a place like the Straight Dope Message Board and make incorrect statements, you should expect to be called on them. This isn’t some little Nazi hideaway where everybody seig heils to the same beat no matter what the facts are.
I’m forced to agree with David. Agis seems to specialize in non sequitur and ignoratio elenchi.
[sneaks off to google “ignoratio elenchi”]
.
.
.
.
[“Literally, ignorance of refutation, arguing for one thing as if it proved another thing”]
[oh]
Damnit! I didn’t get the memo about how I’m supposed to hate gentiles! Anyone have a copy?
DDG,
Tip o’ the ol’ hat to ya missus for keeping the tone right. You’re sharp!
As for the neo-Nazis taking turns at the same crock arguments… This is really getting quite trite!
Whatever happened to our enlightened friend Halogen and our dear Kannuck/Celtic WN Sionnach Too much preasure? Had to hand the torch to ‘Truth’ and ‘Spartan Royalty’?
Whatever…
Sparc
Libertarian, you insufferable egghead!
(Keep it up. It’s entertaining, if nothing else.)
Holy Christ that’s horrible.b That makes me soooo fucking angry."
Maybe your a bit happier after reading this?:
http://www.salemfonden.info/
Doberman,
a/ Not a fair and equal comparison.
b/ Even if it was, how does this justify murdering John Hron? If it doesn’t justify it, how does it make it less despicable?
c/ Read my previous post where I told of my experiences during the week I spent walking in your shoes. Self-fulfilling prophecy? Yes, as a skinhead you get treated horribly by various minorities. Note that this is as a SKINHEAD, it’s not because you happen to be white, but because you have chosen to be a walking billboard for wanting to treat people different (read threaten people) based on their skin color, and/or ethnicity.
Not that I will say that anyone deserves to be treated with vehemence, and I most definitely do not think that anyone should have to suffer violence, or be murdered for any reason. That being said when you tell others, with words, gestures, emblems, or any other way that you want to hurt them… expect to get in trouble.
For anyone who doesn’t command the Swedish language enough to read the frames in the linked site I should point out that although they claim to be politically independent the site has a link to a website where you can order neo-Nazi literature, and German nationalist music as well as white supremacist CDs.
Further note that they do not condemn violence as such, only “multicultural violence”… hypocrisy, anyone?
Sparc
It doesnt justify it, it shows that the image you try to present isnt one-sided. Somehow i get the impression that you value the life of John more than Daniel, that the murder of Daniel was “more” justified.
Get in trouble? Try: get your throat slit. No one should experience or expect such, no matter your political beliefs or emblems you wear on your jacket.
Dobeman, your link is in Swedish or Norwegian or something. Got a version of it in English?
Yes, but you seem to be saying that the murder of John was “more” justified. Murder is wrong, no matter who’s dying.
We’re agreed, then.
Reading trouble? Try again:
And no I do not think that one murder is more justified than the other.
Where I do see a difference is in the motive for violence against a Skinhead and violence against a Slav. One motive is despicable and rational; the other motive is despicable and irrational.
DDG, try following the link that is under the flag of England (a red cross on white)… the skinheads obviously think that it would be to soil the language of ‘true Anglo-Saxons’ with such multicultural dirt as the Union Jack or the Stars and Stripes.
Sparc
SPARC SAID: Where I do see a difference is in the motive for violence against a Skinhead and violence against a Slav. One motive is despicable and rational; the other motive is despicable and irrational.
RESPONSE: What is the difference? Are you saying that it is rational to kill skinheads because they share a common belief system that you dislike, but it is irrational to kill another race?
I disagree. Skinheads/Nazis/Racists/Thought Criminals merely disagree with your twisted view of the world. You may consider that a crime- the public does not.
In the United States, blacks, as 12% of the population, commit more than 50% of the murders, annually. Source: Uniform Crime Reports at www.fbi.gov. It is rational for nonblacks in the U.S. to kill blacks- killing all blacks in the U.S. would require at least 35 million black deaths up front, but it would result in a post-massacre murder rate less than 50% of the current rate, as well as huge decreases in the numbers of rapes and robberies and assaults, the welfare demands, drugs and destruction of our cities. Blacks consume tax dollars in a proportion far greater than their contribution, so the profit margin is an added reason making this rational.
Damn.
I came in here hoping for a good argument with Halogen’s latest outburst but instead I found myself agreeing with him (kinda).
I also don’t understand sparc’s comment that the killing of the Swedish kid was despicable but rational in some way. Both murders were equally despicable and irrational.
It doesn’t matter what the question is, murder is never the right answer.
Well that pretty much proves you’re illiterate, or at least that the sources you rely on for your posts are illiterate. Sez right there on page 252 of the 2001 Uniform Crime Report that blacks comprised 48.7% of arrests for “murder and nonnegligent manslaughter.” Last time I checked, 48.7% is not “greater than 50%,” and that’s even putting asise [ul][]The category is not “murder”[]“Arrest” is by no means the same as “commit”Your stupid conclusion about the rationality white paranoia is reached only by ignoring that the victims of black murderers are also, by and large, black.[/ul]Sheesh.
First things first…
You have to love the irony in the ‘twisted view of the world’ part of that statement… never mind. I don’t consider any specific thought a crime. I don’t consider voicing those thoughts a crime as long as they don’t incite to criminal behavior, I don’t consider acting on those thoughts a crime as long as they aren’t criminal. Nor do I think they should be. That being said, a fair deal of what neo-Nazis spout is in fact criminal or inciting to criminality, such as ethnic cleansing. Independent of which; my opinion is that the whole weltanschauung of the neo-Nazis, criminal or not, is a mental and/or social disorder – as I have stated and argued many times in this thread already.
Minty has already pointed out the reading, or willful comprehension problems of the statistics involved. I will also add that it is, if posted as rebuttal to my rationality statement (as it is), a strawman, since I was speaking specifically about the two murder cases in Sweden, which involved a skinhead and a person of supposed Slav ethnicity. Which brings me to where I have to clarify.
Rationality is not a by force a quality. In Halogen’s strawman (if his figures wouldn’t have been so totally fucked up) it could tentatively have been argued to be rational to act with violence against black males. But you see…
A/ his figures are as stated totally off
B/ even if they were not it does not follow that all black men would be a threat
C/ It wasn’t about black men in America, it was about a white boy in Sweden who four deluded morons thought was of another race, that they imagine is some sort of undefined threat
In the case of skinheads:
A/ being a skinhead is equal to being a threat to ‘non-white people’ (still do not know what this means and nor do they, but never mind)
B/ and that would be… yes… all skinheads
C/ There was no doubting that Daniel was a skinhead
Hence, however damnable and condemnable the act of murdering a skinhead is, it can be rationalized… which does not make it excusable, or acceptable in any way. In any case I think that it was not an act of rational thinking, rational people tend to not murder people right and left, at least not until they pose a direct threat to your own life and limb.
I’ll sum it up: While the fuck-heads that murdered John did so on completely false and idiotic basis - hence irrationally, the fuck-heads that murdered Daniel did so for reasons that compute, again not justifying their actions, only making them possible to rationalize, which is neither good nor bad.
I’ll turn it around: John and Daniel are both victims of useless violence and hence they died for the wrong reasons, but only John is a real hero because he stood up for ideals that were non-offensive to anyone and supported the universal (as in all encompassing) rights of all people. Daniel sadly enough died for ideals that are in fact not heroic, but offensive, oppressive, cowardly and despicable, which in a way makes his death doubly tragic.
Sparc
To follow up on minty’s post:
Table 2.6 from the 2001 UCR (note: the link is to an Excel file that displays in your browser. Don’t know if it will work for all browsers) shows the racial breakdown of murder offenders as follows:
Race
White Black Other Unknown
5,174 5,521 273 4,520
33.4 35.6 1.8 29.2
Note that the percentage of black offenders is not 50%, as stated by Halogen.
Now, let’s look at the statistic alluded to by minty’s last bullet point (Table 2.4 from the 2001 UCR): the racial breakdown of the victims:
Sex of Victim
Total Male Female Unk
Total white victims 6,750 4,785 1,962 3
Total black victims 6,446 5,350 1,095 1
Total other race victims 368 245 123 0
Total unknown race 188 123 34 31
Total victims 13,752 10,503 3,214 35
(Note: I had to change the formatting quite a bit on the above chart, so it isn’t an exact cut & paste job; the values remain unaltered).
Note that blacks make up almost 47% of murder victims! And, from the above, black males make up the single highest demographic - over 50% of male murder victims.
Seems to cast a rather different light on Halogen’s claims.
Actually, I just noticed that the first chart in my post lacks labels. The first row is the number of murders commited by the indicated group, and the second row is the percentage of the total those numbers represent.
My apologies for any confusion.
One more chart, which more clearly addresses minty’s last point - Table 2.8 from the 2001 UCR, which shows the breakdown of murder offenders to victims (for single-victim murders only):
Race of victim Total Race of offender
White Black Other Unknown
White victims 3,644 3,059 475 48 62
Black victims 3,087 180 2,802 10 95
Other race victims 179 52 24 98 5
Unknown race 77 31 20 2 24