• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Europe submits voluntarily

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's an odd way to formulate it. Syria and Afghanistan is sending Europe adult free labour. The whole cost of raising them has been taken by someone else. These refugees will of course only add to Britains wealth helping them to look after the poor and elderly. Studies show that it isn't even a net cost short term.
Do you have a link, that we may find out what assumptions these studies made in order to foretell the future?

The debate is about culture. Ie, how threatened should we feel about kebab consumption skyrocketing and that new mosques are being built.
Do you sincerely believe that anybody who objects to skyrocketing immigration objects because he feels threatened by kebab consumption skyrocketing? If you do, why do you believe something so asinine? If you don't, why did you write something so asinine? Do you think anybody on the other side will be persuaded that he's wrong because you belittled him? Do you think someone will say to himself, "My god, I thought I was afraid that they'd scare away most of the Christians and atheists in my town and then impose shariah on us who are left behind; but Dr. Zoidberg has opened my eyes to the fact that I'm actually afraid of shish kebabs. What a fool I was. I guess mass immigration is actually a good thing."?

Or did you write it because you're uninterested in persuading anyone to change his mind and are just grandstanding for the adulation of your choir?

Or did you write it because you see yourself as a member of the Swedish elite and you're accustomed to looking down on "small minded, red-neck fascistoid idiots living in constant fear of some vague and undefined unknown", and you're hoping that insulting them for being uppity and disagreeing with you will invoke their traditional subservience to their betters, bring them to heel, and bully them into shutting up about their discontent with your rule, because in the past it so often has?
 
Yes some ignorant bigots are able to delude themselves into seeing the entire history of the world as just one Muslim crime.

But some of us are not so simple minded. We have eyes and brains.

We know what Iraq was before the US terrorist attack and brutal decade long occupation and we know this sectarian violence that the US act of terrorism unleashed didn't exist and hadn't existed in over 200 years.

We know that the military leadership of ISIS is former Iraqi military that lost a job after the US brutal act of terrorism against the Iraqi people.

We know that the US was the major supplier of weapons to ISIS, albeit involuntarily, but the weapons would not have been there had the US not carried out it's massive act of terrorism against the Iraqi people.

You realize Muslims engaged in slave raiding up until a couple of centuries ago and on a lesser scale even last century?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes fucking brutal.

People were rounded up at night, with no evidence, taken away and tortured. Innocents were killed everyday, so-called collateral damage. Corporate hitmen roamed the streets killing at will.

A massive act of terrorism.

The people who ordered the invasion of Iraq are no less guilty of crimes against humanity than Saddam Hussein and deserve his fate.

We certainly killed more than Saddam could have even contemplated.

Saddam was killing an awful lot of his own people to make the sanctions look bad.

Sanctions are bad though generally ineffective at produced what one wants to achieve by them. The casualties are of course the poorer civilians. In some cases sanctions improve a countries self reliability. A lot more have died and even more continue to do so since Saddam was removed. It may have been better to keep the infrastructure and replace him with another puppet who was willing to make democratic reforms.
 
I.e.,

"If there is hope, wrote Winston, it lies in the proles."

A declared neo-nazi running into a school wielding a knife, selectively stabbing brown kids - "hope".

You're inside a subthread based on this post, you know?

And? Are you suggesting that the circumstance that DrZoidberg's argument with Jayjay was a spinoff from your argument with maxparrish implies that the referent of DrZoidberg's stereotype equals the referent of maxparrish's horror story? In the words of the master, "even you can do better than that!"

The people DrZoidberg was referring to were... let me find the quote... oh here it is: "Europeans in general". Is it or is it not your contention that Europeans in general are declared neo-nazis running into a school wielding a knife, selectively stabbing brown kids?

Ask yourself this: if your policy position on immigration were correct, would you need to use such epic logic fails to defend it?
 
Do you have a link, that we may find out what assumptions these studies made in order to foretell the future?

All the sources off the top of my head are Swedish. But it's not hard to google. I found a bunch. Just look for a real economist explaining it in their own words. You know... a person who knows numbers and stuff. The Internet is awash. But you'll have to actually make an effort.

This issue is just like debating evolution. There's no shortage of fundie Christians denying evolution and posting all their evidence against it. It's still bullshit. There's no shortage of racists with web-sites about the high cost of immigration. It's still bullshit. Today we have quite a few well documented mass immigration events where the world was nice enough to provide a control group. The mass immigration from Cuba to Florida in the 90'ies was one such event.

The debate is about culture. Ie, how threatened should we feel about kebab consumption skyrocketing and that new mosques are being built.
Do you sincerely believe that anybody who objects to skyrocketing immigration objects because he feels threatened by kebab consumption skyrocketing? If you do, why do you believe something so asinine? If you don't, why did you write something so asinine? Do you think anybody on the other side will be persuaded that he's wrong because you belittled him? Do you think someone will say to himself, "My god, I thought I was afraid that they'd scare away most of the Christians and atheists in my town and then impose shariah on us who are left behind; but Dr. Zoidberg has opened my eyes to the fact that I'm actually afraid of shish kebabs. What a fool I was. I guess mass immigration is actually a good thing."?

Yes, it is asinine. It's just xenophobia. Fear of the different because it is unfamiliar. But racists/xenophobes aren't comfortable when their racism is revealed, so they dress it up in language that make it sound like they have real fears. But none of it holds up to scrutiny. Not when a real economist looks at the numbers.

Or did you write it because you're uninterested in persuading anyone to change his mind and are just grandstanding for the adulation of your choir?

It's more the second one. I don't come here to persuade anybody of anything. I come here to learn and/or test my own opinions. I love when I'm wrong and get scholed on stuff here. But persuade.... never. I admit I'm a sucker for adulation. I'm just human.

Or did you write it because you see yourself as a member of the Swedish elite and you're accustomed to looking down on "small minded, red-neck fascistoid idiots living in constant fear of some vague and undefined unknown", and you're hoping that insulting them for being uppity and disagreeing with you will invoke their traditional subservience to their betters, bring them to heel, and bully them into shutting up about their discontent with your rule, because in the past it so often has?

No. I get why somebody might enjoy this. I just don't. Small minded, red-neck fascistoid idiots living in constant fear of some vague undefined unknown, mostly just makes me sad. In the same way as it makes me sad to hear about some religious person having anxiety about going to hell. It's people battling their personal demons, and externalising them. It's just tragic to see.
 
A declared neo-nazi running into a school wielding a knife, selectively stabbing brown kids - "hope".

You're inside a subthread based on this post, you know?

And? Are you suggesting that the circumstance that DrZoidberg's argument with Jayjay was a spinoff from your argument with maxparrish implies that the referent of DrZoidberg's stereotype equals the referent of maxparrish's horror story? In the words of the master, "even you can do better than that!"

The people DrZoidberg was referring to were... let me find the quote... oh here it is: "Europeans in general". Is it or is it not your contention that Europeans in general are declared neo-nazis running into a school wielding a knife, selectively stabbing brown kids?

Ask yourself this: if your policy position on immigration were correct, would you need to use such epic logic fails to defend it?

Epic logic fail right there, on your side.

Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that I'm guilty of epic logic fails, rather than just pointing out that you should keep track of the conversation a bit better lest it appears you refer to neonazis stabbing kids as bearers of hope: That still is no argument that I'm wrong. Just like a hypothetical scientifically illeterate person claiming that if the sun revolved around the earth, we would see a tail like we do with comets, i.e. making epic logic fails while arguing for heliocentrism, is no argument for a geocentric universe.
 
Why isn't there criticism here about Palestinian terrorist tactics, but all vitriol aimed at IDF? I would have thought there would be at least say, 10% of criticism of the foes of the IDF. Or is it that Palestinians can do no wrong, even when they slaughter women and children.
 
Why isn't there criticism here about Palestinian terrorist tactics, but all vitriol aimed at IDF? I would have thought there would be at least say, 10% of criticism of the foes of the IDF. Or is it that Palestinians can do no wrong, even when they slaughter women and children.

Since Israel uses US weapons and it is allowed to commit it's crimes because of US diplomatic cover at the UN the US is fully responsible for those crimes. It is as if the US is committing them.

As a US citizen I condemn this criminal activity by the government. And there is theoretically a chance that the US government would stop supporting these crimes if enough US citizens spoke out.

As far as some primitive rockets hurled at Israel, it is condemned but it is a RESPONSE to decades of brutal occupation and crimes.
 
Why isn't there criticism here about Palestinian terrorist tactics, but all vitriol aimed at IDF? I would have thought there would be at least say, 10% of criticism of the foes of the IDF. Or is it that Palestinians can do no wrong, even when they slaughter women and children.

Could be because you're posting in the wrong thread and no-one except you is even talking about the idf until you bring it up?
 
Why isn't there criticism here about Palestinian terrorist tactics, but all vitriol aimed at IDF? I would have thought there would be at least say, 10% of criticism of the foes of the IDF. Or is it that Palestinians can do no wrong, even when they slaughter women and children.

Leftist politics: The underdog is always right.
 
This goes out especially to maxparrish so he can practice google-translate-fu.

Sumte, das Dorf der Pragmatiker
- the same place he's talking about.

Neuenfelder wollen Flüchtlinge in ihr Dorf holen
- in a village of 4,600 (administratively part of Hamburg but very rural) the residents objected to plans to erect a container settlement for 450 refugees 1.5 miles from the village - because that would be too far away for the refugees to properly integrate with the village. The refugees might even be tempted to take the bus to another borough instead of doing their errands in the village, and no-one wants that.
 
Why isn't there criticism here about Palestinian terrorist tactics, but all vitriol aimed at IDF? I would have thought there would be at least say, 10% of criticism of the foes of the IDF. Or is it that Palestinians can do no wrong, even when they slaughter women and children.

Leftist politics: The underdog is always right.
It's very obvious who's the underdog in the Middle East, and it's not the Palestinians.
 
Leftist politics: The underdog is always right.
It's very obvious who's the underdog in the Middle East, and it's not the Palestinians.

Yeah! God-damned Palestinians with their fighter jets, attack helicopters and nuclear weapons! Pity the poor Israelis with their rocks and sling-shots against such a well-armed foe.
 
Leftist politics: The underdog is always right.
It's very obvious who's the underdog in the Middle East, and it's not the Palestinians.

Actually there is some truth to that. The zionists have no future there in the long run. They may end up being the scapegoat for America's failure in the middle east
 
All the sources off the top of my head are Swedish. But it's not hard to google. I found a bunch. Just look for a real economist explaining it in their own words. You know... a person who knows numbers and stuff. The Internet is awash. But you'll have to actually make an effort.

This issue is just like debating evolution. There's no shortage of fundie Christians denying evolution and posting all their evidence against it. It's still bullshit. There's no shortage of racists with web-sites about the high cost of immigration. It's still bullshit. Today we have quite a few well documented mass immigration events where the world was nice enough to provide a control group. The mass immigration from Cuba to Florida in the 90'ies was one such event.

Yes, it is asinine. It's just xenophobia. Fear of the different because it is unfamiliar. But racists/xenophobes aren't comfortable when their racism is revealed, so they dress it up in language that make it sound like they have real fears. But none of it holds up to scrutiny. Not when a real economist looks at the numbers.

...I don't come here to persuade anybody of anything. I come here to learn and/or test my own opinions. I love when I'm wrong and get schooled on stuff here. But persuade.... never. I admit I'm a sucker for adulation. I'm just human.

No. I get why somebody might enjoy this. I just don't. Small minded, red-neck fascistoid idiots living in constant fear of some vague undefined unknown, mostly just makes me sad. In the same way as it makes me sad to hear about some religious person having anxiety about going to hell. It's people battling their personal demons, and externalising them. It's just tragic to see.

It's been pretty obvious that you don't "come here to persuade anybody". But it's equally evident are not here to learn either; anyone who dismisses counter-factual sources with name-calling (e.g. "racists/xenophobes", "small minded", "red-neck fascistoid idiots"), relies on hand-waves rather than cites, and confesses that he is a sucker for adulation is NOT someone who "loves it when (he) is wrong".

However, I willing to pretend (for the moment) you would like to learn something; that behind the spewing facade is a decent fellow who actually knows that his scoffing at the opposition's sincerity and motivations is not a form of serious argument but a form of psychological avoidance - a coping mechanism to deal with unwelcome views. If so, I am more than happy teach.

First, I am highly skeptical of the claimed economic benefits by your uncited sources. In the US the measurable Net Economic Gains from immigration have been very small.

Yes, US natives (or Swedes) might gain from immigration IF we ignore social costs or externalities. The economic argument for immigration is that it increases the number of workers in in certain economic sectors. Because of the additional competition in the labor market, the wage of native workers falls. At the same time, however, native-owned businesses gain because they can pay workers at lower wages, and many native consumers gain because the lower labor costs lead to cheaper goods and/or services. If we ignore social & externality costs, the gains that accrue to business owners, immigrants, and those who use or consume immigrant services will exceed the losses suffered by native workers - hence the 'whole' net economy does better.

This model is valid; the gain is distributed to some Americans (or Swedes) and the foreign persons, and the loss in wages is distributed to native workers.

However, the gain is very small. In general, the economic estimates for the US have suggested that the economic gain is less than .1 percent of the GDP...about 15 billion a year or 46 dollars per person. (See, among others, the National Science Academy study).

Second, Immigration also causes a substantial redistribution of wealth, away from workers who compete with immigrants and toward employers, immigrants, and consumers of immigrant services. Native workers lose because immigrants lower or retard wages while Employers gain because immigrants lower or retard wages. These wealth transfers are far greater than the net economic gain for the whole.

Third, most economic studies EXCLUDE the social/externality cost. These negative costs include social conflict, crime, housing, education, food stamps, and health care. Nor do they include cost to the environment (e.g. water usage), land use, air pollution, or congestion. When this is compared to the meager gains from immigration, the balance is that immigration (in the US) has been a net loss, especially for the native born workers.

So the immigration debate is not over the size of the economic pie, but over wealth transfer and social/externality costs.

If you start there, you will have actually learned something.
 
All the sources off the top of my head are Swedish. But it's not hard to google. I found a bunch. Just look for a real economist explaining it in their own words. You know... a person who knows numbers and stuff. The Internet is awash. But you'll have to actually make an effort.

This issue is just like debating evolution. There's no shortage of fundie Christians denying evolution and posting all their evidence against it. It's still bullshit. There's no shortage of racists with web-sites about the high cost of immigration. It's still bullshit. Today we have quite a few well documented mass immigration events where the world was nice enough to provide a control group. The mass immigration from Cuba to Florida in the 90'ies was one such event.

Yes, it is asinine. It's just xenophobia. Fear of the different because it is unfamiliar. But racists/xenophobes aren't comfortable when their racism is revealed, so they dress it up in language that make it sound like they have real fears. But none of it holds up to scrutiny. Not when a real economist looks at the numbers.

...I don't come here to persuade anybody of anything. I come here to learn and/or test my own opinions. I love when I'm wrong and get schooled on stuff here. But persuade.... never. I admit I'm a sucker for adulation. I'm just human.

No. I get why somebody might enjoy this. I just don't. Small minded, red-neck fascistoid idiots living in constant fear of some vague undefined unknown, mostly just makes me sad. In the same way as it makes me sad to hear about some religious person having anxiety about going to hell. It's people battling their personal demons, and externalising them. It's just tragic to see.

It's been pretty obvious that you don't "come here to persuade anybody". But it's equally evident are not here to learn either; anyone who dismisses counter-factual sources with name-calling (e.g. "racists/xenophobes", "small minded", "red-neck fascistoid idiots"), relies on hand-waves rather than cites, and confesses that he is a sucker for adulation is NOT someone who "loves it when (he) is wrong".

Maxie, you owe me for yet another broken irony meter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom