Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
The lady at the verdict protest who said she had 5 sons, and asked what she was supposed to do.
Well, you could start out by teaching them to not plunge knives into people's chest. I mean it's a start.
You are absolutely correct that some people leave their country to get away from those things, like the examples you mentioned with women and gays. But, every bit as much, if not more, are people that leave for economic reasons. Your post provided a slice of evidence, as you said, no you wouldn't change just because you moved to a new location. We don't need evidence to know that. The questions were rhetorical.
Boom, you mostly seem like a decent guy. But you’ve made at least a couple of posts over the years about wishing Hitler would have won, SA shouldn’t have abolished apartheid, etc. to not be serious about being far from racist.
It is what it is.
Kevin giving off serious EIDave vibes.
The Shop
Free shipping: VITALMX
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Correct and I'm sorry for that. When people you care about get murdered in a draconian manner then its easy to shoot your mouth off without thinking.
But again, I'm not racist. I have some good African friends who I hang out with often. These guys are welcome in my home.
For me, bad people are bad people, regardless of their colour or where they come from.
Aplman, you have always come across as an alright dude, and when I step out of line and get called out for it, then it gets me thinking on how to be a better person.
Interesting history behind necklacing...
https://allthatsinteresting.com/necklacing
Boom, I’m not condemning you, but I do condemn some of the things you say and I wish that you felt differently. But life’s not perfect and even if we try to be virtuous, we all come up short in some way. I do, you do, everyone does.
That’s why things like racism, prejudice, etc. are sometimes extremely complicated. We don’t always see our biases that well because we have a more difficult time being objective about ourselves.
Like I said, I think that you seem like a mostly good guy, but those moments of frustration when you instinctively say something overtly racist means something. When those things happen, it usually isn’t by accident. And probably just like a large percentage of nearly every society, it’s likely based in the viewpoint that if someone of a different group of ethnicity commits a crime, it represents the entire group but if someone from ‘our’ group or ethnicity commits a crime, it only represents that individual.
I think that we’ve all had that perspective at different points or situations in our lives. I think you’re too good of a guy otherwise to keep that viewpoint going.
I don’t think we disagree that culture can influence behavior or that people often bring beliefs with them when they move.
What I’m struggling with is why this particular crime is being treated as evidence about refugees generally (and Sudanese refugees specifically in this case).
When a white Texan commits a gruesome murder (see the example of the dismemberment example on page 1), we don’t usually treat it as evidence about white people, Texans, or Americans as a group. The Jared James Dicus case was every bit as horrific, yet nobody argued it revealed something important about white Texans as a population.
If the argument is about broader cultural influences, then we still need evidence showing how widespread those influences are and how much they actually affect behavior. That’s especially important given that studies in Texas have found illegal immigrants have lower violent crime rates than native-born Americans, despite many coming from countries with higher levels of violence. That’s exactly opposite of the behavior you have inferred, isn’t it?
So what makes this case different, and what evidence shows it reflects a broader pattern rather than an individual crime?
No individual crime is evidence of anything. This isn't the hasty generalization fallacy. What I'm saying is simple; there is a global index of violent crime per capita and when people from a region with extremely high violent crime (like Sudan) come to your region with much lower crime, then you may be introducing more violent crime into your region.....and please pay attention because here is the core point of what I'm saying.....and.....people are growing tired of it, and if politicians continue to ignore that growing resentment, people will lose confidence in governments, and it can be extremely difficult to get back.
If white Texans have a much higher rate of crime than some other country, and a bunch of white Texans mover to that country, the odds are that country will be introducing more crime into their country. That's just the odds of it and color or location does not matter, legal or illegal does not matter.
Maybe google something like, "do people that commit violent acts continue being violent when they relocate to more peaceful areas?" and see what you come up with.
I think we’re finally getting to the actual disagreement.
You keep saying that people from higher-crime countries ‘may be introducing more violent crime’ into lower-crime countries. Fair enough that’s a hypothesis (even though you treat it less like ‘may’ and more like ‘do’ with your assertion that people are tired of it).
The problem is that it’s not self-evidently true. And we can actually test it.
For example, as mentioned previously Texas has a large population of illegal immigrants from countries with significantly higher violent-crime rates than the United States. If your hypothesis is generally correct, we’d expect to see higher violent-crime rates among that population.
Yet studies of Texas have found the opposite. Illegal immigrants have lower violent-crime rates than native-born Americans.
So when you tell me to Google whether violent people remain violent after relocating, you’re shifting from individuals to populations again.
Of course a violent individual who relocates may remain violent. Nobody disputes that.
The question is whether immigrant populations from high crime countries commit more violent crime after arriving.
That’s the claim you’ve been making all along, and it’s the claim the Texas data doesn’t seem to support.
I've already said that legal or illegal doesn't have anything to do with anything.
And I don't understand the "shifting from individuals to populations again" part. It's just math, so if 1k individuals per 100k population commit violent crimes, then when you let 100k people into your country from those regions, you may be introducing 1k individuals that commit crimes.
Just google that question and report back your findings. It would make no sense for me to act as a middleman between yourself and actual information from professionals. You shouldn't automatically believe what you read on the internet. I'm helping you search out information that's more valid than what you'd find in a dirt bike forum. What is the reason to avoid a simple google search that would have taken far less effort than each reply here?
No, that's not 'just math'. That's an assumption.
You're assuming the immigrants are a representative sample of the population they came from.
If 1,000 out of 100,000 people in Country X commit violent crimes, it doesn't automatically follow that 100,000 immigrants from Country X will contain 1,000 violent criminals.
Depending on who emigrates, it could be fewer. It could be more. In theory, it could even be zero.
That's why we don't have to speculate. We can look at actual crime rates among immigrant populations after they arrive. When researchers did that in Texas, they found lower violent-crime rates than among native-born Americans.
I decided to google exactly what You said to google." do people that commit violent acts continue being violent when they relocate to more peaceful areas?" I figured I was missing something.
I got the answers I expected based off Your argument
Research shows that individuals who commit violent acts often continue displaying aggression even after relocating to safer, more peaceful areas, as persistent behavioral patterns, trauma, and a learned "culture of honor" frequently travel with the offender. However, the likelihood of recidivism heavily depends on the individual's specific circumstances.
And Also
Exactly as one would expect. Not sure where the controversy is.
Damn, get a room you two.
Ain’t missing nothing here as usual….
Soggy, just because it isn’t what you want to hear, doesn’t make it any less true. Referring to Booms comment.
Watch CBS News
At least 1 killed, 10 injured in shooting in Midland, Texas; suspect dead, officials say
Updated on: June 13, 2026 / 1:37 PM EDT / CBS News
At least one person was killed and 10 others wounded in a shooting in Midland, Texas, on Friday morning, and the suspect is also dead, officials said.
As law enforcement responded to a report of shots fired in the southwestern part of the city at about 8 a.m. local time, the suspect opened fire on police and bystanders, the Texas Department of Public Safety said. The suspect, identified as Victor Mata Villarreal, barricaded himself in an abandoned veterinary clinic and died after a standoff with police, Texas DPS said.
Mata literally translates to "kill" en Espanol.
There's some math.
Pit Row
Here's a random statistic:
"Attempted beheadings by Sudanese refugees are up 100% over last year."
How dare you, vet. Perhaps you should go to South Africa and live with Boom. 😂
You could also say that people from violent areas statistically are less likely to commit acts of violence when relocated to a less violent area than when they stay in the area more prone to violence. According to those studies that is also true.
I don't think Alpman is arguing what You are saying.
He's arguing that the impact of moving along with the personalities of the people that make the effort to make the move deserve their own studies and stats and shouldn't just be grouped into the same stats as the country the person is from. Because while mathematically You may have a higher chance of a violent person being from that country. That is not the same as the chances of a person that makes the move being a violent person. Making the effort to come to the US and the types of people willing to make the move, and the impact the move has on them will impact those stats.
He's talking in a broader more real life way. While You seem to be stuck on being correct about that narrow stat. Of course my understanding of the arguments could be way off too. But Thats how I'm seeing it from the outside looking in. Two people who are trying to get different things from the conversation they are having.
Less than where they were they were from, that would seem to make sense, since a new country with much lower crime would be far more likely to have provisions in place to stop repeated crime. In first world countries it's hard to kill someone, go to prison, get out, kill someone, go to prison, get out, etc. etc.
Agree there's a little asterisk in there that we discussed earlier, which is that people may be moving to get away from the violence in their respective population, but every bit as much, if not more, throughout history people have moved for sheer economic reasons. With them, that asterisk diminishes.
We're definitely missing each other. I can tell it's happening when he adds something that he's offended by which I've never said. Like referencing illegals after I've said legal or illegal doesn't matter, or how he thought I was making claims about millions of people after talking about the crime rates of other countries, which is always a per capita measurement.
Some of you have too much free time....
Post a reply to: Some people are just....