copy paste it

also btw Sweden had a higher rape report rate before the 2005 sex crime law was passed

The ? Is used to denote a question

*"Sweden had the highest number of reported rapes in Europe (almost twice that of England and Wales, based on 2002-2007 UNODC figures), that may or may not be attributed to the fact that in 2005 there has been reform in the sex crime legislation. That change in the legislation applies for rapes reported in 2006 and 2007 but it doesn't apply for the previous rapes reported in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 before the change and when the reported rapes in Sweden were still the highest in Europe."*
This from the wikipedia article you didn’t bother reading

One you are free to answer

If you move to a new country you probably don't have many friends in that country
right?
so there would be a higher likelyhood if you rape someone they wouldn't know you

read it slowly

Yes, but the point is that you raped someone

That you came to another country

And raped someone

I dont know what circuit shorted here

But people tend to not feel safe on the streets with a sudden spike in stranger rapes

I'm talking about how I don't really care about the 80% number

And it suggests vetting was not done properly

it doesn't really do anything for your arguemnt

We're just going to have to disagree on that one then I suppose

Which still leaves us with 58

your argument about 58% over 5 years were foreign born

rapists

@Legalize wanna chat in voice

noice

what would it take though?

to change your mind

How many/which of the following beliefs do you believe requires one to put forward evidence to support their claim.

The flying spaghetti monster exists.
The flying spaghetti monster does not exist.
I don't know if the flying spaghetti monster exists.

Thr first one only.

But it has nothing to do with belief.

Would there be a scenario where the second would need to provide evidence to support their claim? (Let's pretend they are claiming rather than believing)

I agreed with that...

Yes

Shit...

🤔

I meant second xD

It's considered a logical impossibility to prove a negative so never. But it almost makes impossible to prove. But I repeat myself. So it's both unassailable and indefensible.

And the 3rd option is opinion so its inconsequential

The only type of thing you can prove doesn't exist are things that entail logical or physical possibilities. Like a 4 sided triangle

Yeah, I'm trying to explain that an agnostic person doesnt need to provide a rational argument for why they find theism or athiesm unconvincing.

How am I supposed to provide evidence to support my opinion that the evidence for or against the existence of God hasn't convinced me?

Literally I can't make an argument in this regard without afferming either an athiestic or theistic position.

It depends, but potentially, yes.

Actually definitely if the philosophical point is logical, then I would accept it as evidence, though logic isn't always easily defined

Athiesm is the belief that God is not real. Agnosticism is the belief either that it is unprovable that God exists.