Just when you thought the world could not be more sick...

[Chagos]

My claims stand well and firm. I provided evidence for my arguments, you didn't provide any arguments against them. Thats good enough for me.

Well, if it's good enough for you it's good enough for you.

That makes it neither well nor firm and where you may have provided something and that may be evidence for something, it is not evidence for any of your arguments. In other words, as any intelligent reader will conclude, your attempt to back up your original opinion piece failed. In that what you found when questioned is not suitable to lend credibility to your arguments.

That's the problem with offering a foregone conclusion as fact rather than merely as opinion. When challenged to back up, one often runs into difficulties.

Sorry for not answering your completely, but I think those questions should rather be asked to a lawyer.

Any lawyer I know (and I know quite a few) would advise whoever asks to stop wasting his time and darn well stop being lazy and dig up the answers themselves. Or, be it the case that one is either unwilling or incapable of doing that, to not enter into situations of debate.

But thanks anyway for the effort.

 

[Camlon]

Well, if it's good enough for you it's good enough for you.

That makes it neither well nor firm and where you may have provided something and that may be evidence for something, it is not evidence for any of your arguments. In other words, as any intelligent reader will conclude, your attempt to back up your original opinion piece failed. In that what you found when questioned is not suitable to lend credibility to your arguments.

If you want to question my arguments then provide arguments against it, if not then we stop here. And no you didn't provide anything, the source is the best we got to show prison duration in Sweden, and the rest of your post was about your questions, not my arguments.

You claim that your question will reveal something, but I am not going to debate in that way. If you have some new argument, then just tell me directly.

That's the problem with offering a foregone conclusion as fact rather than merely as opinion. When challenged to back up, one often runs into difficulties.
Any lawyer I know (and I know quite a few) would advise whoever asks to stop wasting his time and darn well stop being lazy and dig up the answers themselves. Or, be it the case that one is either unwilling or incapable of doing that, to not enter into situations of debate.

I think the lawyer will tell you to say what you are thinking about directly, my bet it is something I have heard before.

 

[Chagos]

Oh.. not this again, if you want to question my arguments then provide arguments against it, if not then we stop here.

Which brings us back to what appears to be a habitual code of conduct with you, claiming of others what is NOT. Read my post again in which I addressed your so-called substantiation, address my rebuttals and answer my questions and do the research I've suggested.

I am not playing the game where I will guess what your arguments are.

You're playing the game of pretending that you have to guess.
As to the truth of that, see what I pointed out above.

I think the lawyer will tell you to say what you are thinking about directly, my bet it is something I have heard before.

It doesn't matter what you or I think. The pertinent issue is you having made the original claim of

Also, it is not the luxury that disgust me, but the sentence length. I know that when this rapist get 2 years in prison, then he will soon be out doing new crimes. Norway luckily got a 3 year minimum for rape, but Sweden doesn't and the result is crazy low sentences for truly disgusting people. That is contributing to their high rape rate.

and still having substantiated it with nothing, zero, zilch.

 

[Camlon]

Which brings us back to what appears to be a habitual code of conduct with you, claiming of others what is NOT. Read my post again in which I addressed your so-called substantiation, address my rebuttals and answer my questions and do the research I've suggested.You're playing the game of pretending that you have to guess.
As to the truth of that, see what I pointed out above.

It doesn't matter what you or I think. The pertinent issue is you having made the original claim of and still having substantiated it with nothing, zero, zilch.

Yes I did support that claim in post 69, and you never responded to my arguments. Your response was to tell me that I didn't completely answer your question, about the law difference between Norway and Sweden on recidivism and rape rate. My guess is that you are trying to make the standard Swedish defence, which is to claim that the differences is due to law.

You never said why you think your question will debunk my argument. I will give you an answer, when you tell your arguments directly.

 

[Chagos]

Allright, you don't want to tell your arguments, then we will stop now. And yes I did support that claim in post 69. You told me to answer your question, you never said why your question will debunk my argument.

I will give you an answer, when you tell your arguments directly.

I already pointed out how your post substantiated nothing and I clearly showed why.

As such you supported nothing in your claim and you can keep on claiming even that until you're blue in the face, it changes nothing in this being your favourite MO and nothing in the fact that it's been repeatedly (not just here) shown for what it is. Namely useless and also prevaricating.

Your attempt to turn any correlations (if those can at all be seen as existing) into causation is a complete failure.

I already made my arguments, I pointed out what in your post is useless and why, so the ball is in your half of the court.

I'm fairly sure that you can't back up your questioned claim at all, just as I'm sure you could know why your figures are of no relevance to substantiation. You could know that if you'd treated them with the required critical distance that is the driving force towards conducting more in-depth research, leading to testing what one is about to present as evidence on its merits first.

And, I'll add, the first step towards creating a sound basis for the presentation of a concise and logical argument that will stand up to scrutiny and, where applicable, challenge.

You clearly have done none of that and until you do I will hold your initial premise (see above) to constitute nothing other than hogwash.

You going round and around the same issue that you've decided to isolate for yourself will change nothing.

 

[Camlon]

I already pointed out how your post substantiated nothing and I clearly showed why.

No you didn't, your first two quotes was some cheap attacks on one of my sources without having an alternative, and the rest was just you claiming that your questions will answer everything. If that is the case, then spit it out.

I am not going to guess what your arguments are.

Your attempt to turn any correlations (if those can at all be seen as existing) into causation is a complete failure.

I already made my arguments, I pointed out what in your post is useless and why, so the ball is in your half of the court.

I'm fairly sure that you can't back up your questioned claim at all, just as I'm sure you could know why your figures are of no relevance to substantiation. You could know that if you'd treated them with the required critical distance that is the driving force towards conducting more in-depth research, leading to testing what one is about to present as evidence on its merits first.

And, I'll add, the first step towards creating a sound basis for the presentation of a concise and logical argument that will stand up to scrutiny and, where applicable, challenge.

You clearly have done none of that and until you do I will hold your initial premise (see above) to constitute nothing other than hogwash.

I stille see no arguments, just you claiming to have won the argument before you have even started.

 

[Chagos]

No you didn't, your first two quotes was an attack on my source without having an alternative, and the rest was just you claiming that your questions will answer everything. If that is the case, then spit it out.

I am not going to guess what your arguments are.



I stille see no arguments, just you claiming to have won the argument before you have even started.

You're beginning to flounder even more and more.

1. I don't have to supply you with any alternative sources, it suffices that I shred yours.

2. It's not my questions that will answer anything, it's your answers that would (provided you offered something credible)

Leading to the summary conclusions of "you made the claim, now back it up"

To address your final confusion in this particular post of yours, I'm not claiming to have won anything (yet). I'm observing that you lost the minute you made that claim and until you show different, that state will prevail.

As a word of advice, if you ever want to debate successfully, you need to cut thru the claptrap of others' gish gallops and keep focussed on what is relevant. As I've been doing with you in that , here, you so far have brought nothing to the table.

 

[Camlon]

1. I don't have to supply you with any alternative sources, it suffices that I shred yours.

Not when we talk about prison lengths, then we use the best source available. Just like if we look at inflation in Venezuela, then we look at the best source available, and agree that there may be some uncertainty.

2. It's not my questions that will answer anything, it's your answers that would (provided you offered something credible)

I am not playing that game, spit your argument out or we are done.

 

[Chagos]

Not when we talk about prison lengths, then we use the best source available.

We're not talking about prison lengths, you are. Trying, as I repeatedly pointed out, to form causation (to rape incidence) without proving any of it.

[/remainder snipped as part of the gish elimination]

I am not playing that game,

It is very apparent what game you're trying to play but you can't succeed with me.

spit your argument out or we are done.

It's already been spat:roll: repeatedly but you can bow out any time you like.

As to when I'm done with you, I'll be the judge of that.

 

[Camlon]

We're not talking about prison lengths, you are. Trying, as I repeatedly pointed out, to form causation (to rape incidence) without proving any of it.

Yes we were, that was the source you attacked for being nearly 7 years old. You didn't attack any of my other sources.

I did provide evidence to support my argument, you didn't provide any evidence against them.

It is very apparent what game you're trying to play but you can't succeed with me. It's already been spat:roll: repeatedly but you can bow out any time you like.

As to when I'm done with you, I'll be the judge of that.

I am not playing the game where I am supposed to guess your argument, because your argument is too weak to be told directly.

 

[Chagos]

Causation, man.

Between length of prison sentence(s) (cause) and rape incidence (result).

Scope of what, by law, constitutes rape.

By country.

How often do I have to tell you?

Now prove it.

 

[coldjoint]

Depraved paedophile raped teenager, got her pregnant then raped the child she gave birth to eight years later - Mirror Online



Hope he gets what he deserves in prison...

Why don't you address the real rape problem in the UK and all over Europe? And one sick white man has little to do with it.

 

[Camlon]

Causation, man.

Between length of prison sentence(s) (cause) and rape incidence (result).

Scope of what, by law, constitutes rape.

By country.

How often do I have to tell you?

Now prove it.

I don't believe that, I believe there are multiple factors such as prison enforcement and rehabilitation. It probably helps Norway that the rehabilitation system is so good.

However, I do believe very short prison sentences (1-2 years for rape) is an important factor in Sweden. Then you don't get enough time to rehabilitate the criminals, and they will soon be out on the streets where they will do new crimes.

 

[Chagos]

I don't believe that, ....................

Well, why not say that from the beginning?

That this is about what you believe. Or not believe.

That's totally different to knowing (or thinking one does) and then presenting it as fact.

 

[Chagos]

On that note, sack hitting time for me.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Why don't you address the real rape problem in the UK and all over Europe? And one sick white man has little to do with it.

Why stop there? Here's a list of other cliches you can throw into the thread.

• Sweden is the rape capital of the world
• Europeans are fat, lazy children at heart that we need to protect
• The muslims are running Europe (and versions of)
• Eurabia! Londonistan!
• Europeans are becoming a homogenous mulch and are all becoming the same country (and versions of: the Irish are losing identity / Brits have no identity etc)
• There are no guns in Europe, the governments have taken them away from the citizenry
• Universal Health Care is evil.
• There is no free speech in Europe.
• There are no freedoms in Europe. (Muslims control everything or "the Left" does)
• 1.5 million muslim immigrants are going to take over 400 million Europeans or even add them to the 22 million muslims in Europe and they will control all Europe

.

Knock yourself out.

 

[Chagos]

Why stop there? Here's a list of other cliches you can throw into the thread.



Knock yourself out.

Is this a sinister attempt at over-stimulating Pavlovian dogs into self-drowning? :mrgreen:

Not bad

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Is this a sinister attempt at over-stimulating Pavlovian dogs into self-drowning? :mrgreen:

Not bad

Haha, I'm going to keep that list handy and just post it rather than try and "debate" similar posters in future. I've wasted far too much neural processing trying to show such people the error of their ways in the past. :3oops:

 

[coldjoint]

Why stop there? Here's a list of other cliches you can throw into the thread.



Knock yourself out.

How else do you deal with it? Do you just wish it will go away? Wake up.

 

[coldjoint]

Is this a sinister attempt at over-stimulating Pavlovian dogs into self-drowning? :mrgreen:

Not bad

You had the name wrong in your first reference. Go back and look genius.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

How else do you deal with it? Do you just wish it will go away? Wake up.

If it exists in the state you claim then we deal with it; trouble is you should have just picked something else on the list to make a claim with.

 

[coldjoint]

If it exists in the state you claim then we deal with it; trouble is you should have just picked something else on the list to make a claim with.

Trouble is your attitude. But that is your problem, not mine. It is no wonder nothing gets done.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Trouble is your attitude. But that is your problem, not mine. It is no wonder nothing gets done.

My problem is knowing more than you, but that hasn't hurt me so far.

 

[coldjoint]

My problem is knowing more than you, but that hasn't hurt me so far.

No. Your problem is thinking you know more than me. Like I said, attitude.

 

[Chagos]

Haha, I'm going to keep that list handy and just post it rather than try and "debate" similar posters in future. I've wasted far too much neural processing trying to show such people the error of their ways in the past. :3oops:

I don't bother altogether.

Only irritation left is that one can't turn off the notifications here (v.bulletin makes no provision) so I still get to know that "the blanked" quote me. OTH it's amusing that they do, so I grin and move on.