Did you forget the original conversation this came from? It was about comparing control of a border with control of your house.
There are ways to compare those and ways that dont work
And no, I did not forget the original conversation. Did you just add that question there to make the repetition of an old assertion look good? Because repeat is all you did in the end
Did you forget that you argued like there are NO way to compare those? You said things like it showed I was not thinking. Again you repeat it don't work, without explaining.
Homes dont have populations to sustain. Shrinking populations provide less tax revenue for an aging population. They also prevent projects due to insufficient population.
Projects may also be prevented because of infighting between immigrants and non immigrants.
Maybe... interesting hypothetical. Usually having people who want to get paid to work helps the work happen though.
Therefore the first comment I had on all this stuff. We have no proof that they will want to get paid. If they get by on welfare, they may choose to stick with it
They may choose to steal instead of working. They may want to work but not be able to do anything useful.
The tax revenue may be improving with immigration, but it may not matter. As I said long ago, it is not given that immigration gives a net plus for economy of a country.
Actually it is a well established given that immigrants are good for the economy. They are more likely to start a business, and buy gigs like everyone else.
the people included in your statistic are the ones who went through the long and expensive process of immigrating legally. Canada has a big beautiful wall between you and Mexico btw.
That actually included all forms of immigration
Not all refugees are poor. Just displaced by war. Often wars we started, and so should bear some responsibility for.
I suppose you know all about the literature on this? You have read it all and made an overview of it all have you? I was told differently.
Actually yes, I have. Not to any major extent, but enough to know that immigration is good for the economy. The bring money to the nation.
OK, sorry if I don't believe a word of what you are saying here.
Also, the immigration on a massive scale that is happening in Europe today, it is an experiment that is hard to predict the outcome of. One claim is that they will not integrate well
A few immigrants have to bend to the will of the people living in a country. When they become many, they will set their own demands. Muslims for example have their own culture
The Koran specifically sets muslim men on top, then muslim women, then the whites. Those who follow the koran have no intention of caring for us when we get old
I think I see where you have blinders on. You see Muslims as some kind of threat. I see Christian's as being a similar threat, but dont think we should kick them out.
Blinders? This just gets dumber and dumber. You seem to be totally unaware (blinders?) of what has happened in Sweden, France, Germany, Britain etc. with Muslim gangs.
I know lots of people fall for fake, and sensational news. Gangs exist everywhere. Often the biggest problem you hear about are not coming from the recent immigrants.
The recent ones? Who cares if they are recent? Maybe you should watch this to learn something about what real people experience.
You are an immigrant...
I suppose you refer to "we are all immigrants if we go far enough back". Irrelevant to this thread, and a silly argument. But more important, did you watch the movie?
You ever hear what is written on the statue of liberty?
If you had a point and was able to make it, I would be willing to listen. But you like pretending to have an argument instead. Just say what you want to say already
You are just repeating your same nonsense now. I get it, you cant actually refute the loi vs. You just hand wave them away like LightRider would.
the "loi vs."? You seriously need to learn to write down what you think
I need to read what I type before hitting post more... I think I was going for "refute the points."
I'm not going to waste my time watching that right now. I am mostly talking about people in North America. Especially the US which was built through immigration.
You were talking in general terms in the topic. Now you have chanced your stance again. I understand that you don't want to watch that, you might learn something about the truth
Yes, when talking about global freedom of movement I was. Right here we were talking about the ignorance of complaining about immigration while living in North America.
How do you figure that? Where did we state North America?
It became that when I mentioned that you are an immigrant, and when mentioning what is written on the statue of liberty.
Ah, I chose to ignore that particular unfounded assumption. Apparently you took that as a confirmation and an acceptance of your constant attempts to derail the conversation.
I am not derailing the conversation. You did that long ago.
Lies are not helpful. Shame on you.
You derailed the conversation with your comparison. Then refusing to accept the reasons your comparison failed. It is all on you.
I make comparisons to help you understand the failure of your logic. You try to make this into "you are an American huh huh" and similar things. All on YOU
I never made it about you being American. If your done repeating yourself you might try to make a point.
Easier to claim that others have blinds and go on repeating your own stuff, never really listening to what others say. Do you even understand what having "blinds" involves?
Oh, and of course stuff that does not happen in North America is irrelevant, nothing to learn from other places, cause parallels do not exist in your world
When talking about globalism or most anything for that matter, it is wrong to think America is the only topic that matters.
So here you have a total logical breakdown again. You were saying you refused to watch a movie that was not about North America. Obviously my comment is about that.
If you don't think America is the only topic that matters, your "reason" for not watching the movie falls away. Maybe you should watch it then.
I dont have time right now is the reason.
And remember, you want more immigration, that will increase the problem.
Families can also shrink, and it could be argued you should allow some bums into your house to adjust for this. To increase the household income. A bum may have some small allowance
The funny part of that compairons is that often immigrants are the middle class who could afford to emigrate their nation, and set up in another. So bum doesn't really apply.
They may be bums, they may not. Just because they were rich at home does not mean they will be in their new country. Typically rather young boys come, and they are not workers/bums yet
Sure, it is fine for people to come live in your home. Since you like this comparison I am sure you would hardly notice these people in your home as you have millions living there.
This is just totally off the scale. You are the one arguing in favor of importing (OK, since you are too dumb to understand that word, "allowing entrance of") immigrants.
What do you know. Scale makes your comparison break down, just as I was saying.
No, "this is off the scale" as in very stupid statement. You ask others to accept immigrants, and now say it is fine for people to live in my home. The question is about YOUR home.
Off the scale? As for my home country yes I like immigrants. I am one of the only white home owners on my street. Many other white people are renters in basement suites.
Fascinating story I'm sure. So, do you understand that I am asking you if you have invited bums to live in your living-room?
I understand that. It is completely irrelevant to this issue of course. It shows just how much you dont understand what is being discussed.
You understand it, but still just talked as if it was about me accepting immigrants in my country or bums in my home. Do you hold your nose with one hand while typing this manure?
You were he only one talking as if it was about accepting bums in your home. Are you acknowledging how shitty your idea was?
So you are back to repeating your unfounded assertion that my parallel is wrong I see. Shame on you.
How could you see that as repeating my earlier points? Are you reading something else and then replying to the wrong comment? That I could understand. I was correcting you this time.
Wrong again. My idea that you should allow bums into your living area is directly based on the parallel that you have so much trouble with. It is quite simple from a logical pov
Do you want me to explain it to you? It is trivial, but I can explain it if you can't manage.
Please do, especially since it is your misunderstanding that leads to his idea.
You think western democracies "must" accept immigrants. They come into our "home" (homeland), and the question then arises, what if they act like bums? Since you do not see the problem
I use the parallel of normal homes, and ask if you accept bums into your living area. Do you get it now?
No wonder you cant actually see the issue. You are so hung up on people immigrating to western countries.
OK, you are claiming that western countries should allow immigration, and then you claim I can't actually see the issue because I am hung up on people immigrating to western countries
Repeating your strawman. I've said it enough. You can argue or fail.
Ah, that is where you are confused. I said all countries, not just western countries. Also it was about coming, and going. Not just western countries accepting immigrants.
Who said "just" western countries? Are western countries not part of "People should be free to go where they wish"?
You already failed.
You didn't hear me. Why are you now talking about "just" western countries? What relevance does that have?
I'm not. You are. I mentioned America because you kept wanting to make it about western countries. I was just mentioning it is un-American to be against immigration.
The only real political pressure to accept lots of refugees that I know about to is on western democracies. I cannot talk for other countries, so I talked about what I knew.
I do not try to make it about western countries, but when I make a statement that I am not sure goes for all countries, I naturally limit the list.
I have seen many refugees express, in interviews on youtube, their gratitude to European countries and citizens for accepting them when their own muslim neighbors wouldn't.
Western nations are some of the only nations that accept refugees as far as I know. My freedom of movement is more about nations that dont let people leave. North Korea for example.
What you said earlier was something to the effect that it was wrong to be against immigration. It seemed to cover the current resistance in western countries against mass immigration
America was meant to be a bastion of freedom for people fleeing oppressive nations. Like I said, read what is written on the Statue of Liberty.
That or in the case of the USA, which always had a policy of taking on refugees, and immigrants from all over. In the US is is almost cliche that immigrants come and start a business.
Mass immigration isn't even a real thing. War refugees are a different issue though. Africa took in a lot of European refugees during the world wars so it is wrong for Europe to say no
First, I don't accept your assertion that mass immigration is not a real thing. You should show how it is not. Second, the large wave of immigrants that came to Europe recently...
It isn't enough people to be considered "mass immigration." Also people returning home after fighting has settled down doesn't mean they were not refugees.
Enough people to become majority in a few decades is not mass immigration? You really think this? These are projections for current immigration policy for several western countries.
The reason anyone else would become the majority is actually due to low birth rates of people from those nations. People dont have enough babies. People need to have at least 3.
If everyone did this, the population explosion would be a bigger and bigger problem. Also, it is not wrong for populations to shrink. We have been through this before. Did you forget?
I know you showed your ignorance before.
OK. You keep being wrong, which not so bad, but then you are obnoxious about it, which is not fine. I noticed you backed off when I asked you to give me your best argument properly.
I didn't back off. I'm just not repeating myself. I gave you the argument in the form of your formula, and the actual example laid out. I'm not going to dumb it down anymore.
Instead you spend your time being obnoxious
From what you have said so far it seems you want a even more liberal policy, where these countries would be flooded with immigrants in maybe one decade, until they broke down
What makes you think everyone would move if they could? Most people like to stay home, unless home is not a good place to live.
Population explosions in Africa are projected to lead to much more people wanting to move than now actually. In general, Africa is not a good place to live compared to the west
Already there are quite some signs of what's to come. Sharia courts for example are in place today in Britain(not above British law, but still operating as if being legal institutions)
Or you could look to South Africa, where white farmers now are being killed for being white, even a politician singing from stage stuff that strongly suggests killing of whites.
Most of this is actually fake news. The right are very susceptible to propaganda.
Your assertion. The singing is provable.
Used to be directly "kill the boer".
The left is just as susceptible to propaganda.
it was sold to us as refugees, but later it has been shown that the majority was not. Many go back to their home countries on vacation for example. Those who were refugees from long
ago, they mostly stay in the European countries even when wars stop in their home countries. They have not plans to go back. Very different from majority of WWI/II refugees
Yeah, and if the new country offers better opportunities then they go for that. That is not a bad thing.
Whether it is a bad thing or not is not relevant. The point is it is different. Taking care of a group for a short while is very different from being stuck with them forever
Those who dont return often left because of persecution. Those who return left because their homes were not safe. They are more likely to return after.
This is irrelevant. Se another reply.
Nothing wrong with different at all.
So, I will use my parallel again. I let you stay in my house for 1 hour because you are cold. Then I demand that you now let me stay in your house forever. Fair?
Also, you really should read up on demographics for the region. Some estimates give muslim majority in about half a century. If you look at what trouble they already have with distinct
minorities, this is a very serious thing. Again you should watch the movie I linked to. It shows some of the things you can expect with radical Islam in a western country
Private property is owned by an individual. Nations are public property and governments in a way manage that property. Only a portion dislike immigration.
This is not answering what I said. Also it does not make much sense to me.
I am listing which inckmpatabilitirs makes the comparison fall apart.
Ah, you are back to repeating the old argument with the big hole in it. Maybe I should have guessed. Feeling impolite yet?
You have yet to actually respond to the argument. I dont think you can. You just keep hand waving it away.
Wrong again. As all the other stuff you say. I keep explaining in many different ways, you have not said HOW your big words like "private vs public" makes a difference. You just assert
Homes dont have military battles over neighbouring borders. Disputes over fences go to local governments. In a home a squatter can displace you. Immigrants dont come in those numbers.
I did explain. Comparing how you manage who comes I to your home to how you control who come and leave a country doesn't work. There are ways to compare nations to homes, not that one.
No, as with this very comment, you just repeat. You do not say WHY it does not work. You just repeat the assertion.
These are the reasons why comparing nations to homes cant be compared for border control.
So now this is the new thing you are going to repeat over and over?
You keep asking for the reasons. You ask me to repeat it in a different way so that you might understand.
Oh, give me a break. I have been very clear that I do not want you to repeat. What I ask you to do is fill the gaping hole in your logic, WITHOUT repeating the faulty logic
You ask for the reasons, and get given the reasons, and then hand wave away the reasons. Explain how those reasons are not good enough for you.
You use words like "scale" and think you have explained something. Scale is not an argument. You must explain how the scale makes a difference.
Actually, answer me this. Do I want you to repeat? Have you understood that I want you not to repeat?
And you should go back and count your own repetitions and be ashamed of yourself for making them. It is very impolite to do this when it has been made clear that it is not helpful.
If you ever get why these are explanations why you might go back and see how it was being spuoon fed to you, and you just couldn't see it.
You have now started filling the previous hole that I talked about. You have even started to change your stance by now to something completely different from what it was in the start
Originally I was talking a out freedom of movement, and how governments shouldn't be able to restrict people from coming and going across the border. Like the EU, but globally.
All that remains now is to start pretending that this is what you said the whole time. We shall see if you are sufficiently dishonest to go there
I have not changed on that at all. You have just been saying that chang happen by comparing it to private property.
OK, that answered that question. You are that dishonest.
Projecting again. And you use my words against me almost immediately after I use them. This stinks of intellectual dishonesty.
It is mocking, not intellectual dishonesty. Lol
It really is not easy to understand when you are being honest. Honestly, your logic is so flawed that I cannot tell if you are just trolling at the best of times. Please don't do that.
My logic has been consistantly and sound. You just keep hand waving things away.
So this just shows that you are a kid with some big words. You have no idea what you are talking about. You have totally made a fool of yourself.
These are why. You just dont get that.
Wrong. You left a gaping hole in your argument over and over. As I explained, you chose a c, but you did not prove that the lack of c in B necessarily proved the parallel was faulty
Scale, and public vs private. B is an individual case, while A is on a larger scale. Private vs public ridership. Which aspects confuse you so I can deal with how they apply.
They all are attempts to confuse the issue. You can let random people into your country or into your family. They may become "integrated" or not. You have no way of telling.
Still, all those "aspects" are wrong. You can explain them, and I can pick apart your attempts. It should be easy enough.
Try and do so then
You refuse to refute the ideas. You just keep asserting they are wrong. I am the only one backing what I say with an argument.
I refuse to make your argument for you and then refute. Is it too much to ask to make a real case for how these "aspects" play out in real life to a difference before I refute?
I made my arguments. Now refute them. If not then you are incapable.
So you did not claim above that you could go more in detail on them? Your sentences are botched, not easy to know what you really are trying to say
Consider I have had to repeat it to you multiple times you should understand the reasons given by now.
Ah, back to repeating. You have not "had to" repeat anything. You have been obnoxious enough to keep repeating after I asked you not to. There are no reasons, you are full of hot air
You say not to repeat and then ask again for the how those are dissimilar on ways hat make the comparisons meaningless, which makes me repeat the reasons. You cant refute the reasons.
No, I asked specifically for explanation of HOW your platitudes work in real life to make a difference to my parallel. WITHOUT repetition of the platitudes. You know this
Yes, and you failed to respond.
OK, exactly where did you do what I say I asked for here, with me failing to respond?
When I gave a list of the dissimilar qualities that make comparing those two fall apart on this particular issue. You can either say why those dissimilar qualities dont matter or not.
OK, so you didn't. You repeated the old things again. You keep avoiding my ABc argument and the red/blue jackets parallel. It is up to you to show it matters first.
I already explained how your ABc argument was wrong, and corrected it for you. I explained how the quality c was exactly how the two were dissimilar.
OK, now you are just lying
Sure... even if you dont like the examples I have given, you should at least try to respond to them. If not it just shows you can not.
You know that this does not follow. There could be many reasons why I choose not to play your games. To try to score cheap points like that is even more intellectual dishonesty.
The only intellectual dishonesty is coming from you. You try to claim my arguments are in a different form, and attack that form. Strawman much?
It might have been, if you were right about that assertion. Point out where I did that in detail. Not vague arm waving. Where exactly did I say what.
Since you are probably going to object to that: I can say "Airplanes can't fly because the sky is blue". That is not an argument, I would need to show why the blueness matters
I did explain why they matter. It explained which qualities were disimilar and how it makes your comparison break down. How much do you need it spoon fed to you?
All the way to where you get off the platitudes and give an argument.
I gave a list of disimilar qualities. I have spoon fed the argument to you.
Yes, you gave me a list of platitudes. No, that is not spoon feeding. It is intellectually dishonest conversation. And I did explain why this is so.
You gave a strawman of why you think it is so. You have not, because you can not, actually refute why those disimilar qualities make your comparison fail.
It is your job to show how they make the comparison fail, not mine.
I did. Quit repeating yourself.
What you do is indicate it is up to me to fill in the blanks (how blueness messes up air travel) and then refute. This is preposterous.
And no, it is not sufficient to say "Well, not only is the sky blue, the forest has snakes too". You keep doing this. Platitudes like "scale" are not enlightening to me.
If instead I were to say "when the sky is blue, the atmosphere gets super hot, so the wings of the plane melt and fall off", then I would have at least a real (albeit poor) argument
You were on the right track a bit with the aging population argument, except of course you missed that the same could be used for families. At least that was an attempt.
You should try comparing to a similar style of argument. Your long example has nothing to do with the argument I gave at all.
You keep making this unfounded assertions. They always show to be wrong when we investigate them. Then you go on to new ones. I think you actually manage to fool yourself with this.
To use your formula, I explained how your comparison of A and B broke down due to factors c, d, e, and f were disimilar, and it is those qualities that matter when comparing A and B.
I have not gone on to k
New ones. Funny because you said I was repeating them before. I'm still waiting for any attempt to show why the disimilar qualities I gave were wrong.
And you might get one, once you show they are relevant.
Oh I have. Many times. Since you cant refute them though you pretend they didn't happen. I get it. You cant back up your words.
I did refute it. c, d, e ...k, they are all of the form of my new airplane argument platitudes. It does not matter how many platitudes you add, they are still just platitudes.
They are not in the form of your airplane argument at all actually. You have yet to actually refute the points. You are just hand waving them away by misinterpreting them.
OK, if you had a good argument, you would make that one, and stick to it. But never mind that. Pick one here and now and present it properly.
Quit repeating yourself.
Pick your best argument and repeat it here. As if you mean it.
But the reason is clear enough. You tried to show how it did not make sense, and failed, and now you instead try to pretend there is an argument there that you will not tell me about
Maybe you missed my argument that "scale" is not an argument. You must explain how scale plays a role. Hence my ABc argument, which you seem to have forgotten.
We did get to why scale matters actually. When you talked about letting a bump in your home, and I said it wouldn't matter if your home had millions of people already.
If I don't get you to make the argument first, you will change your stance after the fact and pretend that the new stance was your stance all along, as you have shown willing to do
They may help your economy or they may break it. They may help you when you get old, or they may rob you blind. You just don't know. You act as if there is certainty they will be good
Also, the repetition is still impolite.
