Europe submits voluntarily

[whichphilosophy]

I'm retired now, but I was a sales rep selling food stuff to various businesses, among whom were many Muslims running Asian and middle Eastern grocery stores. Does that answer your question? Made friends with some of them. Still see some around actually. Some of those businesses closed up unannounced, and the company I worked for lost considerable amount of money. A rule was instigated that middle Eastern businesses had to be COD.
During the Iraq wars, anti Americanism was 100% by all of them. Not once did I run into a muzzie who condemned a terrorist attack by any Islamic terrorist group. Before all of that, I was neutral.

Have you condemned the terrorist attack of the Iraqi people conducted by the US and it's henchmen in 2003?

Or is it only necessary to condemn small and minor acts of terrorism?

To be politically correct, our terrorists are liberators and their opponents are terrorists.

The error was to invade as it cost the lives of American servicemen and even more Iraqis.

 

[untermensche]

Have you condemned the terrorist attack of the Iraqi people conducted by the US and it's henchmen in 2003?

Or is it only necessary to condemn small and minor acts of terrorism?

To be politically correct, our terrorists are liberators and their opponents are terrorists.

The error was to invade as it cost the lives of American servicemen and even more Iraqis.

The cost in life is certainly a tragedy but the US military does does decide where it goes and with what mission.

That is decided by civilians.

 

[whichphilosophy]

To be politically correct, our terrorists are liberators and their opponents are terrorists.

The error was to invade as it cost the lives of American servicemen and even more Iraqis.

The cost in life is certainly a tragedy but the US military does does decide where it goes and with what mission.

That is decided by civilians.

As long as they didn't die the civilians were happy that others died for their apparent cause.

 

[TSwizzle]

Celebrate diversity you silly islamophobes!

The Dutch are reveling in diversity.

A pregnant 14-year-old girl has gone missing from a Dutch asylum centre.

She is thought to be a child bride and disappeared from Ter Apel asylum centre two months ago.

Police say Fatema Alkasem was nine months pregnant and may be in need of medical care.

The Netherlands currently faces a problem in providing asylum for girls who married in Syria but are below the Dutch age of consent, which some argue condones pedophilia.

As many as 20 girls between the ages of 13 and 15 have been given legal permission to join their older partners in Dutch asylum centres, regional news channel RTV-Noord reports.

The charity Save the Children has reported an "alarming increase" in the number of child marriages within Syrian refugee communities in Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon.

Independent

 

[Trausti]

What Europe needs is 1.5M more Merhi Alsheblis!

Political analyst Daniel Chasquetti said the government underestimated cultural differences between Uruguay and the refugees' homeland and failed to take into account their limited job skills.

Wat?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LT_URUGUAY_SYRIA_REFUGEES_FRUSTRATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-10-19-10-03-03

 

[maxparrish]

The only people wallowing in hysterics are the people who think the muslims are invading.

I wish I could just declare myself the winner. Life must be so easy for you.

Did you miss the sarcasm?

I did explain, you just didn't understand my explanation that the warning you claim is valid is in fact not valid.

Incidentally, him being an immigrant doesn't lend any weight to his claims.

Perhaps surprising to some, but your belief that it could be is also not sufficient to raise concerns.

Sure. And some mad scientist could engineer a pig that can fly.

Doesn't mean I'm going to hold my breath.

Blah...blah...blah .

And that was only the first HALF of your "insightful" commentary in your post.

Given your inability to demonstrate that an extrapolation from current trends under current Swedish policy is "bat shit crazy", and your shifting claims, there is no point in asking again for your evidence - its not gonna happen.

However, a closing summary and comment on your perceptions and methods is warranted.

1. The article from Gatestone (based on statements by TS) that IF it continues at the current rate, 1000-1500 a day is more than plausible for the remainder of the year...it is ALREADY 800 or more a day. (The Oct 10 edition of DN.se reports the rate in the prior week was now 1285 a day).

2. The factors that contribute to these increasing numbers are: a)Swedish policy b) war c) economic distress. If none of these change, the extrapolation is plausible. Unless you can show why the pool of 10s of millions desperate seekers from the mid-east, africa, and elsewhere will disappear, your counter-argument has the weight of a feather.

3. Extrapolations from current trends are not "made up numbers"; although denial of trends is clearly a mind made up. Those familiar with English know that the term "made up" is usually a pejorative, meaning "trumped up, concocted, false, untrue, specious, spurious, bogus...". But those who are familiar with logic knows that the conclusion of an IF-THEN statement is not "bogus" unless the conclusion does not follow from the assumptions. If current trends of attempted immigration to Sweden continues THEN the results could be 1000 to 1500 a day.

If X then Y does not mean "Y is made up" or bogus. I think everyone knows that.

As repeatedly explained by both myself and others, taking a thin slice of time where you have extreme numbers caused by temporary factors (such as say a war), and then extrapolating from those numbers over long time periods, simply doesn't work; more than that, it will never yield credible projections no matter what the subject. Insisting on extrapolating based on such numbers anyway is either an extraordinarily ignorant thing to do that will fuck up your projections beyond usability, or an incredibly dishonest thing to do for the purposes of arriving at intentionally high numbers of something in order to scare people. Needlessly to say, it is obvious you're just trying to fuel nire fear.

I get that you relentless claim the extrapolation does not work over long periods of time because they are caused by temporary factors, but you have completely failed to do is prove those factors are actually temporary. I see no reason or evidence to assume that they are temporary, and your continued factless bloviation on "extraordinarily ignorant thing to do" and "incredibly dishonest" is transparent dodging. Put up or give up.

You have made a claim that 1000 or more a day in the future is impossible. Prove it. Prove to us that the 10s of millions seeking to escape war and poverty will evaporate.

Again, that's not how the burden of proof work. You can't prove a negative. *You* are the one throwing your backing behind the claim that 1000-1500 asylum seekers in Sweden a day for 15 years is plausible, therefore *you* have the burden of proof. All I've seen so far is the kind of math that's barely just a 'and that yields 666 which is the number of the beast' removed from numerology.

Your personal inability to challenge facts is not because you are being asked to "prove a negative". The facts of regional war, world poverty, huge increases in refugee applications, and Swedish policy is not in dispute. YOU claim that one or more factors will not be a factor in the future. But you can't provide a grain of evidence for your claims so you whine that you "can't prove a negative'.

If your claims were true, one could find support for your view. Apparently they are not true.

Moving on...

 

[laughing dog]

Extrapolations from current trends are not "made up numbers"; although denial of trends is clearly a mind made up.

By definition, extrapolations are "made up numbers". Extrapolations are guesses based on assumptions about the future. There is nothing magical nor compelling about any particular extrapolation. Most intelligent people understand that extrapolations that attempt to explain the consequence of human behavior are too simplistic to be taken seriously since extrapolations - by definition - exclude changes due to learning or feedback effects.

 

[maxparrish]

Extrapolations from current trends are not "made up numbers"; although denial of trends is clearly a mind made up.

By definition, extrapolations are "made up numbers". Extrapolations are guesses based on assumptions about the future. There is nothing magical nor compelling about any particular extrapolation. Most intelligent people understand that extrapolations that attempt to explain the consequence of human behavior are too simplistic to be taken seriously since extrapolations - by definition - exclude changes due to learning or feedback effects.

No, they are not. See above. But at least we now don't have to worry about "If-then" global warming extrapolations....after all, they exclude future learnings and unknown feedback effects.

 

[dystopian]

Given your inability to demonstrate that an extrapolation from current trends under current Swedish policy is "bat shit crazy", and your shifting claims, there is no point in asking again for your evidence - its not gonna happen.

Right. Because I should no more be expected to demonstrate it than demonstrate that it's more than a bit silly to take the fact that the average child grows at a rate of about 7 centimeters per year, and use extrapolation to determine that the average 80 year old will be more five and a half meters tall. If you can't understand the problem after it's been repeatedly explained to you, it's not gonna happen.

1. The article from Gatestone (based on statements by TS) that IF it continues at the current rate, 1000-1500 a day is more than plausible for the remainder of the year...it is ALREADY 800 or more a day. (The Oct 10 edition of DN.se reports the rate in the prior week was now 1285 a day).

Here we go again.

Sure. IF it continues at this rate then it's plausible for the next of the year. And then IF it continues for the next of the year, then yes you have a year with those numbers. And then IF it continues for another year again, and IF it continues the next year, and IF it continues the year after that, and IF it continues for yet another year, and IF, and IF, and IF...

And IF one random person gives me 1 euro tomorrow, I am 1 euro richer. And IF two random people give me 1 euro the day after that, then I'm 2 euros richer. And IF three random people give me 1 euro the day after that, I can extrapolate and determine that I'm going to end up really fucking rich in just a few years. I could totally decide to buy all sorts of expensive stuff on credit since I'll be able to afford to pay it all back based on the projections.

Fortunately... I am not a fucking moron.

2. The factors that contribute to these increasing numbers are: a)Swedish policy b) war c) economic distress. If none of these change, the extrapolation is plausible.

And IF.... and IF.... and IF....

IF your argument is entirely based on IFS... you don't have an argument.

Unless you can show why the pool of 10s of millions desperate seekers from the mid-east, africa, and elsewhere will disappear, your counter-argument has the weight of a feather.

Nah-ah... you're the one making the claim that this is (or at least strongly suggesting it's going to) going to happen... therefore *you* have the burden of proof. I explained this to you.

3. Extrapolations from current trends are not "made up numbers";

Did I not explain to you that extrapolated numbers are by definition, made up?

Those familiar with English know that the term "made up" is usually a pejorative, meaning "trumped up, concocted, false, untrue, specious, spurious, bogus...".

You're right, and as anybody who actually *understands* English would know, it also simply means made-up; as in, fictional or hypothetical; without any judgement. I, of course, was using the term in *both* ways.

But those who are familiar with logic knows that the conclusion of an IF-THEN statement is not "bogus" unless the conclusion does not follow from the assumptions. If current trends of attempted immigration to Sweden continues THEN the results could be 1000 to 1500 a day.

But... those familiar with logic would *also* know that A) an IF-THEN chain of logic doesn't actually prove something to be true or even likely, and B) they would know that an IF-THEN chain is meaningless if you start off from bogus assumptions or do not properly account for all variables. Which; you and your source have *not* done.

I get that you relentless claim the extrapolation does not work over long periods of time because they are caused by temporary factors, but you have completely failed to do is prove those factors are actually temporary.

Which again, I don't actually need to do. Immigration/refugee rates have NEVER been stable over long periods of time. They wax and wane over time, and have done so for all of recorded history. What you're proposing is something that is so historically anomalous that YOU need to prove it's anything more than your paranoid delusions at work.

- - - Updated - - -

Most intelligent people understand that extrapolations that attempt to explain the consequence of human behavior are too simplistic to be taken seriously since extrapolations - by definition - exclude changes due to learning or feedback effects.

Hari Seldon would disagree.

But then, Hari Seldon is made up.

 

[laughing dog]

By definition, extrapolations are "made up numbers". Extrapolations are guesses based on assumptions about the future. There is nothing magical nor compelling about any particular extrapolation. Most intelligent people understand that extrapolations that attempt to explain the consequence of human behavior are too simplistic to be taken seriously since extrapolations - by definition - exclude changes due to learning or feedback effects.

No, they are not. See above.

Repeating falsehoods does not make them true. Extrapolations are made up numbers.

But at least we now don't have to worry about "If-then" global warming extrapolations....after all, they exclude future learnings and unknown feedback effects.

Whether or not one worries about an extrapolation is up to them, but that does not negate the reality that an extrapolation is a made up number.

An extrapolation of a trend which is simply using an expressed relationship of one variable with another variable. I agree that no one should worry about extrapolations of outcomes that are affected by many variables that are likely to change during the extrapolated period. However, given the lack of sophistication in your response, I suspect you are conflating a simplistic form of forecasting (extrapolation) with more complex forms of forecasting which are based on sophisticated models linking many variables with those linkages based on scientific findings. Whether one worries about those forecast is also up to the individual, but those forecasts are also "made up numbers" as well.

From  Extrapolation

In mathematics, extrapolation is the process of estimating, beyond the original observation range, the value of a variable on the basis of its relationship with another variable. It is similar to interpolation, which produces estimates between known observations, but extrapolation is subject to greater uncertainty and a higher risk of producing meaningless results.

The issue is not whether a forecast is "made up" - because it is made up. The issue is not whether a forecast is not a guess - because it is a guess. To disinterested and fairminded people, the issues are
1)whether the forecast is driven by reasonable assumptions and methodology, and
2) whether the forecasts appear consistent with current knowledge.

 

[maxparrish]

No, they are not. See above.

Repeating falsehoods does not make them true. Extrapolations are made up numbers.

But at least we now don't have to worry about "If-then" global warming extrapolations....after all, they exclude future learnings and unknown feedback effects.

Whether or not one worries about an extrapolation is up to them, but that does not negate the reality that an extrapolation is a made up number.

An extrapolation of a trend which is simply using an expressed relationship of one variable with another variable....

Then all trend forecasts have "made up" results, and are to be equated with "bogus", "trumped up", "concocted", "false", etc., right?

As I stated earlier, it is a misleading pejorative in an IF-THEN statement.

For example, at one time one might have said (quite reasonably): "If Billy Holiday keeps up her trend of heavy drinking then she will likely get cirrhosis of the liver". Of course, until the day she did get cirrhosis of the liver (and then died) I am sure there were Dystopian's claiming it was "all made up"...you know, meaning "bogus" and "false" and "trumped up".

Sorry, that won't do.

I agree that no one should worry about extrapolations of outcomes that are affected by many variables that are likely to change during the extrapolated period.

Actually my point was that one has to have a basis for believing that those variables will change. If one expects long periods of peace, prosperity, or a change in Swedish policy I'd like to hear it - so far I have been given a deafening silence.

However, given the lack of sophistication in your response, I suspect you are conflating a simplistic form of forecasting (extrapolation) with more complex forms of forecasting which are based on sophisticated models linking many variables with those linkages based on scientific findings. Whether one worries about those forecast is also up to the individual, but those forecasts are also "made up numbers" as well.

Glad to hear they are bogus - just what climate deniers have claimed. You sure you want to go there?

The issue is not whether a forecast is "made up" - because it is made up. The issue is not whether a forecast is not a guess - because it is a guess. To disinterested and fair minded people, the issues are
1)whether the forecast is driven by reasonable assumptions and methodology, and
2) whether the forecasts appear consistent with current knowledge.

Perhaps those using the word "made up" ought to use a term that cannot be confused with "untrue" or "bogus". I have no objection to calling the numbers a logical conclusion to a set of assumptions that may or may not be based on reasonable assumptions.

 

[dystopian]

Then all trend forecasts have "made up" results, and are to be equated with "bogus", "trumped up", "concocted", "false", etc., right?

No, because proper trend forecasts do not make the mistake of looking at the peaks of activity and using them as the base numbers from which to extrapolate.

 

[maxparrish]

Then all trend forecasts have "made up" results, and are to be equated with "bogus", "trumped up", "concocted", "false", etc., right?

No, because proper trend forecasts do not make the mistake of looking at the peaks of activity and using them as the base numbers from which to extrapolate.

LOL...like the "peak" in global temperatures?

Wanna guess what the slope of this trend is?

 

[maxparrish]

And for those others, like Dystopia, in denial:

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Sweden is likely to receive a record number of asylum seekers in 2015, with data on Friday showing applicants have already exceeded a full year forecast issued by its migration agency just over two months ago.

Related Stories

Finland raises 2015 forecast for asylum seekers to 50,000 Reuters
Refugee consensus crumbling in Sweden, Europe's most generous host Reuters
Norway PM sees billions in extra costs to cope with asylum seekers Reuters
Finland tightens criteria for Iraqi asylum seekers Reuters

The Nordic country's traditionally generous attitude towards newcomers has made it a favoured destination for many of the hundreds of thousands of people whose arrival has created Europe's biggest migration crisis since World War Two.

The debate is over. Sweden (et. al.) is burning while deniers fiddle.

 

[Ford]

And for those others, like Dystopia, in denial:

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Sweden is likely to receive a record number of asylum seekers in 2015, with data on Friday showing applicants have already exceeded a full year forecast issued by its migration agency just over two months ago.

Related Stories

Finland raises 2015 forecast for asylum seekers to 50,000 Reuters
Refugee consensus crumbling in Sweden, Europe's most generous host Reuters
Norway PM sees billions in extra costs to cope with asylum seekers Reuters
Finland tightens criteria for Iraqi asylum seekers Reuters

The Nordic country's traditionally generous attitude towards newcomers has made it a favoured destination for many of the hundreds of thousands of people whose arrival has created Europe's biggest migration crisis since World War Two.

The debate is over. Sweden (et. al.) is burning while deniers fiddle.

And by "burning" you mean "taking in too many non-whites."


Of course, this is Sweden's choice. How dare they!

 

[DrZoidberg]

And for those others, like Dystopia, in denial:

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Sweden is likely to receive a record number of asylum seekers in 2015, with data on Friday showing applicants have already exceeded a full year forecast issued by its migration agency just over two months ago.

Related Stories

Finland raises 2015 forecast for asylum seekers to 50,000 Reuters
Refugee consensus crumbling in Sweden, Europe's most generous host Reuters
Norway PM sees billions in extra costs to cope with asylum seekers Reuters
Finland tightens criteria for Iraqi asylum seekers Reuters

The Nordic country's traditionally generous attitude towards newcomers has made it a favoured destination for many of the hundreds of thousands of people whose arrival has created Europe's biggest migration crisis since World War Two.

The debate is over. Sweden (et. al.) is burning while deniers fiddle.

I can repirt that Sweden is fine. No fires anywhere. We're nowhere near where it'll be a problem with the asylum seekers

 

[laughing dog]

Then all trend forecasts have "made up" results, and are to be equated with "bogus", "trumped up", "concocted", "false", etc., right?

I fail to see the logic in that question. As matter of experience, I happen to think most trend forecasts are not terribly interesting or useful, but that is my bias.

As I stated earlier, it is a misleading pejorative in an IF-THEN statement.

I understand you feel it is misleading, but your illogical inclinations are not a convincing argument.

Actually my point was that one has to have a basis for believing that those variables will change. If one expects long periods of peace, prosperity, or a change in Swedish policy I'd like to hear it - so far I have been given a deafening silence.

Also no reason to expect the rate of immigration to remain constant. Or that Swedes or the rest of Europe or the rest of the world will not alter the views on accepting refugees/immigrants.

Glad to hear they are bogus - just what climate deniers have claimed. You sure you want to go there?

Go where? The term bogus is yours, not mine.

 

[Juma]

<double post/>

 

[Juma]

And for those others, like Dystopia, in denial:



The debate is over. Sweden (et. al.) is burning while deniers fiddle.

I can repirt that Sweden is fine. No fires anywhere. We're nowhere near where it'll be a problem with the asylum seekers

Not entirly true since the comrades of maxparrish et al has burnt down a number of refugee shelters

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, because proper trend forecasts do not make the mistake of looking at the peaks of activity and using them as the base numbers from which to extrapolate.

LOL...like the "peak" in global temperatures?

Wanna guess what the slope of this trend is?

It's the right that has been trying to use the peak to discredit climate change. The left correctly looks at the rolling average.