Jeez, Amanduh sure is dumb

There are, however, two groups of people who really do commit crime, especially violent crime, at wildly different rates: Men and women.

According to FBI crime statistics, men are arrested for roughly three-quarters of all crimes. When it comes to violent crime, the stats are even worse. Nearly 9 out of 10 people arrested for murder are male. Ninety-nine percent of rape arrestees are men. Men are arrested for 8 out of 10 aggravated assaults.

If Trump is right and the crime rate is serious enough of a problem to compel us to abandon basic human rights so as to subject certain groups of people to monitoring and legal intimidation, then it’s not immigrants we should target. It’s men.

We do Amanduh. That’s why 9 out of 10 of those arrested are men.

Jeez.

30 thoughts on “Jeez, Amanduh sure is dumb”

  1. The most idiotic article I have read in some time – that said, I have the solution. Immediate moves to be made to send the author to Eritrea or ISIS held territory to see first hand her contentions are correct. Good God there are some fools around…

  2. The majority of femmi-crimes are crimes of deception. The very basis of feminism.

    Except child abuse/murder where females rule.

    Hey Mandee–how about some extra-tough, bash-em-up treatment for women cos they do the most despicable crimes against kiddies. Time for Plod to dig out the leather gloves and turn off the interview tape.

  3. Anyone reading that might reasonably have assumed that she would be taking a pop at Saudi Arabia / Islam. But actually I don’t think she was…

  4. “We do Amanduh. That’s why 9 out of 10 of those arrested are men.”

    I still think my plan to deport all the men and then make them join the queue to immigrate back in (if they’re good enough) was a better idea. Then apply zero tolerance – deport any man who commits any crime whatsoever. That’ll teach ’em!
    😉

  5. “According to FBI crime statistics, men are arrested for roughly three-quarters of all crimes.”

    Blatant discrimination!!!!!

  6. Statistics.

    The person most likely to kill you if you are 11 or under is your mum.

    Does that make your mum a dangerous person?

  7. Despite all I did agree with this statement………….

    As a side benefit, this will rid the world of cargo shorts, aviator sunglasses and backward baseball caps.

    there had to be a plus in there !

  8. “The person most likely to kill you if you are 11 or under is your mum.”

    Filicide is associated with various victim and perpetrator characteristics. The first year of life appears to represent a critical period, with the risk greatest on the first day of life.14–19 Neonaticides are almost always committed by mothers,20 as are homicides during the first week of life.21–23 While mothers are overrepresented in cases of infanticide,24 filicides that occur after the first week of life are often committed by the father or stepfather, with fathers being the most frequent perpetrators of filicide in later childhood.17,23,25–28

    Although some studies have noted that mothers commit filicide more often than fathers,5,9,21,29–32 other research has shown that paternal filicide is as common or more common than maternal filicide.12,17,27,33–39 Reports of a higher proportion of maternal filicides most likely reflect the inclusion of neonaticides in some studies.17

    http://www.jaapl.org/content/35/1/74.full

    RESULTS: Seventy-five percent of the incidents were type 1 incidents, perpetrated mainly by men (83%; typically the infant’s father or the boyfriend of the infant’s mother).

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/124/2/e210

  9. So if the child is lucky enough to make it through day 1 it is more likely to be killed by the father? And is it suggesting the inclusion of neonates is wrong? And surely the number of neonate deaths is under reported as they are more likely to be hidden pregnancies?

  10. “So if the child is lucky enough to make it through day 1 it is more likely to be killed by the father?”

    Apparently. I don’t know. I thought it was an interesting statistic being cited above, so I did a bit more research into the question. I’m just sharing what I found – it really makes no difference to the point being made.

    As I’ve said before, it’s a case of blaming group A for the sins of an overlapping group B, in order to justify one’s hatred for and persecution of group A. Trump did it with immigrants. Amanda responded by doing it with men. You guys responded by doing it with mothers. And so it goes.

    The logic, of course, is nonsense, and would be even if the statistic was true. But of course you knew that – that’s why you said it.

  11. “What about domestic violence? Lesbian couples lead in that particular statistic by some margin.”

    Same thing. We can list examples of group A/group B combinations endlessly. But after the first one or two, it gets a bit pointless.

    Amanda was obviously being ironic. I’m beginning to wonder if some of the people here understood that point.

  12. As I’ve said before, it’s a case of blaming group A for the sins of an overlapping group B, in order to justify one’s hatred for and persecution of group A. Trump did it with immigrants. Amanda responded by doing it with men. You guys responded by doing it with mothers. And so it goes.

    Motes and beams.

    We are not all Andrew C.

  13. On the bullshit again NiV?

    The document you link to says there are studies reaching both conclusions (about child killing only) but then is full of sly attempts to ease women out of the frame. Murders of kids done by women still under the influence of hormonal disturbance of pregnancy etc. As if that matters.

    I’m now trying to find out more about the authors. Because few in the child abuse industry don’t have the stink of Marxian femmi on them.

    You present this as if it is gospel but in the femmi-riddled, child abuse industry lies are king. And you are a peddler of lies NiV.

    When you are not peddling idiocy and outright insanity.

    Still waiting to hear -and see– proof of how many violent jihadis your powers of friendly persuasion have turned to the cause of light.

  14. “Some of us are men, with the male subtlety gene.”

    Apparently!

    “Marcotte, ironic? She’s not Jonathan Swift. She lacks the mental capacity to do irony.”

    Ah! You recognised the title, then? And you thought she was being totes serious with lines like: ” It’s hard to rape and murder people with your mom watching you”?

    “You present this as if it is gospel but in the femmi-riddled, child abuse industry lies are king.”

    I didn’t present it as gospel. I simply presented it. And then when asked about it’s implications, said “Apparently. I don’t know.” I think it’s pretty apparent who’s the liar here, eh?

    When members of the ‘tinfoil hat’ tribe are especially deranged, they frequently demonstrate a characteristic mode of thinking in which any random unsupported statement on the internet that agrees with their prior beliefs can be taken as gospel, while any contrary statement backed with documented evidence is ‘obviously’ part of a Marxist conspiracy by those in authority to cover up the truth (they’ll look for the evidence to prove that later…). And everything they see only further confirms the absolute and obvious truth of their beliefs.

    There’s no point me advising you to get professional help, as I’m sure you’ll tell me the entire psychiatric profession is “Marxian” and “femmi-riddled”, too. Right?

  15. “What about domestic violence? Lesbian couples lead in that particular statistic by some margin.”

    But did the study correct for butchness?

  16. Bloke in Costa Rica

    NiV, she’s too dumb to pull this sort of shtick off. Anyway, if we were to take her at face value, the one surefire way we know to reduce violent crime in the US to Icelandic levels would be to execute every black male between the ages of 18 and 35. This may or may not be what she wants.

  17. “NiV, she’s too dumb to pull this sort of shtick off.”

    [rolls eyes]

    “Anyway, if we were to take her at face value”

    And why would we be dumb enough to do that? Do you even know what irony is?

    The generic argument is to justify persecution of group A by pointing to an overlapping subset group B who deserve to be persecuted (in popular opinion), and therefore persecuting group A achieves the objective of doing so. It’s a stupid, evil-minded, argument – but eternally popular because the stupid, evil-minded people already inclined to persecute group A assume that any argument that leads to a ‘correct’ conclusion must be correct. They don’t bother to parse it any closer; they often don’t even realise how illogical it is.

    One particularly amusing rhetorical approach to countering it is to simply apply the *same* argument to a *different* target; one the simple-minded bigot supports and wants to protect. It forces them to parse the argument properly, to recognise its obvious stupidity. If you want to persecute group B then you can persecute group B directly and specifically – you don’t take it out on the whole of group A. Then, having got them to see the flaws in the logic, they’re thereby forced to acknowledge that its equally a species of dribbling insanity when applied to their favourite hate group.

    That’s the theory, anyway. The sort of thuggish skin-head Neanderthal who has back-to-front swastikas tattooed on his forehead because he did them himself in a mirror is unable to comprehend such a sophisticated abstract ironic analogy and all they can see is an attack on their own favoured group A by mixing them up with those scum in group B. So they hit back, pointing out the stupidity of anyone who would use such a stupid argument.

    Trump argues for dealing harshly with immigrants because some immigrants are criminals – when the group he should be targeting is simply the criminals.

    Marcotte therefore argues for dealing harshly with all men (ho ho ho) because some men are rapists and murderers and totalitarian Saudi-Arabian mysogynists, when obviously the group we should be targeting (and as Timmy says, do target) is simply the rapists and murderers. Same logic.

    So AndrewC therefore argues for dealing harshly with mothers because some mothers are child-killers, when of course the group we should be targeting is the child-killers. Same logic.

    So Johnnydub therefore argues for dealing harshly with lesbians because some lesbians are wife-beaters, when of course the group we should be targeting is the wife-beaters. Same logic.

    The government want totalitarian control of the internet because hackers/pornographers/paedos/terrorists/tax-evaders. They want to ban guns because mass shootings. They want to ban sugar because fat people. They want to ban late-night alcohol because city-centre fights. They want to ban baby milk on airplanes because of the underpants-bomber. Same logic

    It was the same logic when Ecksy wanted to prevent all transgender women going to the toilet because in Australia there were gangs of muggers who kicked down toilet doors and robbed men while they were sat on the pot.

    (Taking note of SE’s motes and beams – touche, sir! – I’ll make clear that I’m not attaching the “neanderthal thug” label to *everyone* here – only to those hypotheticals who repeatedly demonstrate an inability follow a simple ironic analogy. So that’s not about you, is it? No sir!)

    Marcotte’s previously used the Group A/Group B tactic herself, and on previous occasions I don’t think she was being ironic. But on this occasion, with epic unsubtlety, she was laying the irony on with a bucket wheel excavator. It’s so irony that magnets stick to it. The proposals are so far over the top that not even she can conceivably expect to be taken seriously (aviator sunglasses?!), and in case anyone is still dumb enough not to get it, there’s that titular reference to a previous famously ironic satire.

    Now, I’m sure you do get it, and are just winding me up. That’s fine. I’ve enjoyed the opportunity to blow off some steam at the sad state of mankind. And if I can make Ecksy blow a gasket again that’d be good, too. But I’m sure that none of you would want to even *pretend* any more that you’re dumber than Marcotte, not even for a joke.

    Because the one laughing hardest at that would be Marcotte.

  18. Your fantasy juvo-crap never improves does it numb-nuts?

    First off your links don’t prove shit. The authors of the piece say that refs exist for both men/women being the biggest child killers and then make it clear where their sympathies lie. Of course to point out that a field–the child abuse industry ( and a nice little earner it is) –is full of femmi-freaks is too sensible for a CM soaked loon like you.

    And as I pointed out countless times if even men aren’t safe in toilets then women have even more to fear from a tidal wave of freaks that SJW transgender antics will allow into their bogs. Not that you give a shite.

  19. @NiV “So AndrewC therefore argues for dealing harshly with mothers because some mothers are child-killers,”

    Did I? Where exactly did I say that? Perhaps you could quote back to me the words I used to say that mothers should be dealt with harshly. Because I’ve looked the words I posted and can’t see that at all.

    The point I was actually making was that saying that because men commit most violent crimes therefore all men should be targeted to prevent violent crimes is as dumb as saying that because some mothers kill their own children that makes mothers dangerous.

    But I guess you read what you wanted to read and not what was there.

  20. NiV

    I can see what you are saying – the snag for your argument is that when Sarcasm or irony is employed against Marcotte’s belief normally she responds with saying that expression of such sentiments should usually be banned or criminalised, so perhaps the ‘appreciation’ of her arguably sarcastic piece is less than you deem it should be. Humour and feminism are for most people outside of the committed political Left mutually exclusive concepts, so unfortunately those not of such a stripe may not appreciate the wit when it appears…..

  21. “The point I was actually making was that saying that because men commit most violent crimes therefore all men should be targeted to prevent violent crimes is as dumb as saying that because some mothers kill their own children that makes mothers dangerous.”

    Yes, that’s what I read you as saying. The point is, I read Marcotte saying exactly the same thing, using exactly the same method.

    Saying that because immigrants commit crimes therefore all immigrants should be targeted to prevent violent crimes is as dumb as saying that because some men rape and murder that makes all men dangerous. Targeting all men to prevent violent crimes is as dumb as targeting all immigrants.

    The theory in making such a counter-argument is that if you present the same stupid argument but applied to a different group they don’t despise, the person making the original stupid argument will see the error of their ways. The problem is they don’t. All they see is a stupid argument being applied to an undeserving target. So of course they try to counter it by applying it to yet another undeserving group…

    There is a theory that animals intelligent enough to have self-awareness can be identified by the fact that they can recognise their own image in a mirror, rather than seeing it as a rival to be attacked. The great apes, elephants, dolphins, and even the Eurasian magpie all managed to pass.

    “the snag for your argument is that when Sarcasm or irony is employed against Marcotte’s belief normally she responds with saying that expression of such sentiments should usually be banned or criminalised”

    Oh, I agree. Like I said earlier (“…all they can see is an attack on their own favoured group A…”), some people remain blind to their own uses of the method while being able to see clearly everyone else’s. Even after it’s been pointed out to them. Marcotte is definitely in that class.

    I’d like to think we’re cleverer than that.

  22. When women murder children it’s often conveniently glossed as ‘Cot Death’ – even though there’s absolutely no evidence that such a thing exists.

    There was also the survey done earlier this year which showed that 5 out of 6 men in prison wouldn’t be there if they’d been treated as leniently as women are. This either means lots of men are being wrongly imprisoned – or there are lots of women roaming the streets who should be locked-up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *