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.