Everyone can see through your disingenuousness. Immigrants should be kicked out of the country en masse because they commit crime and drain resources, not just because they commit terrorist acts.
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
56,217
Baby steps, I suppose! Just keep applying the logic of pros vs cons in terms of real numbers rather than scary feels and allow your political beliefs to flex a bit, you might be surprised.
Right, because a tick drinks only a "little bit" of blood, that's perfectly fine and you should do nothing about it.
If that tick's an essential part of a well-functioning economy that ultimately produces more blood for you than it sucks, then sure! Profits are what matters rather than simple "revenue" and "costs" in a vacuum, after all. (Particularly if you're being silly and only looking at the costs.)
Yes, even though immigrants take in the most welfare [1][2], have high unemployment rates [3][4], and are empirically a fiscal drain on the economy of Sweden to the sum of 1.35% of the GDP [5][6], not including resettlement costs (to put that in to perspective, that's a larger share of the GDP than the USA spends on the navy, and also keep in mind, most of these immigrants are young and are yet to burden the healthcare system as they age), these immigrants somehow, and unquantifiably, a "boost the economy"? How are they an "essential part" of an economy that they just came in to, which is bending over backwards to accommodate them?
And maybe you've had a change of heart and gone full capitalist on me, but profits aren't all that matter. Even if immigrants were a "boost to the economy" (or really, a boost in arbitrary macroeconomic markers), the increase in crime [7][8][9] and breakdown on societal cohesion and social capital that inevitably results from increasing racial heterogeneity [10] more than outweighs the benefits.
The fact is third world immigrants are not compatible with the West as their lower IQ and other innate biological differences prevent them from successfully integrating. Sweden is for Swedes, France is for French, and everyone should be able to live among their own kind in their ancestral country of origin. Especially since people of the same ethnicity share similar characteristics thus are more inclined to get along (no, it's not just "you look like me, therefore I like you" tribalism).
And maybe you've had a change of heart and gone full capitalist on me, but profits aren't all that matter. Even if immigrants were a "boost to the economy" (or really, a boost in arbitrary macroeconomic markers), the increase in crime [7][8][9] and breakdown on societal cohesion and social capital that inevitably results from increasing racial heterogeneity [10] more than outweighs the benefits.
The fact is third world immigrants are not compatible with the West as their lower IQ and other innate biological differences prevent them from successfully integrating. Sweden is for Swedes, France is for French, and everyone should be able to live among their own kind in their ancestral country of origin. Especially since people of the same ethnicity share similar characteristics thus are more inclined to get along (no, it's not just "you look like me, therefore I like you" tribalism).
Well, first off, refugees aren't the same as "immigrants". They're a specific type of immigrant, people displaced from their home countries by war and are evacuating their own failed states etc. Expecting them to be the same as, for example, a legal immigrant is absolutely absurd.
I don't argue for refugees from an economic standpoint because of that- I think refugees should be accepted into other countries for purely humanitarian reasons, since I would appreciate the same treatment if I were one of them!
Also, I haven't had a "change of heart"- for all of my arguments, I'm not a communist or whatever you might assume lol. I'm pro-capitalism and in favour of social democracy as the system going forward.
Some of your sources are hilariously low quality, I'd just not include them if I were you since they only harm your argument. (Talking about sources 7 and 9, here.)
Last paragraph is a waste of words since meaningful racial differences have been scientifically disproven for quite a while now.
As far as I'm aware, crime increases as a result of immigration tend to even out within 20-30 years..? Something else worth mentioning is that immigrants are going to come into the country at a certain age- late teenagers, adults. Young children almost never commit crime, so the age differences explain a large disparity in crimerates- as well as explaining why that disparity tends to disappear within a generation, since the children of those immigrants will of course go through their childhood years before even really having the opportunity to commit crime, same as the native population.
Immigration is hugely important for the economies of many countries around the world, since it provides the competition and workforce needed in both unskilled work and certain skilled professions.
I don't argue for refugees from an economic standpoint because of that- I think refugees should be accepted into other countries for purely humanitarian reasons, since I would appreciate the same treatment if I were one of them!
Also, I haven't had a "change of heart"- for all of my arguments, I'm not a communist or whatever you might assume lol. I'm pro-capitalism and in favour of social democracy as the system going forward.
Some of your sources are hilariously low quality, I'd just not include them if I were you since they only harm your argument. (Talking about sources 7 and 9, here.)
Last paragraph is a waste of words since meaningful racial differences have been scientifically disproven for quite a while now.
As far as I'm aware, crime increases as a result of immigration tend to even out within 20-30 years..? Something else worth mentioning is that immigrants are going to come into the country at a certain age- late teenagers, adults. Young children almost never commit crime, so the age differences explain a large disparity in crimerates- as well as explaining why that disparity tends to disappear within a generation, since the children of those immigrants will of course go through their childhood years before even really having the opportunity to commit crime, same as the native population.
Immigration is hugely important for the economies of many countries around the world, since it provides the competition and workforce needed in both unskilled work and certain skilled professions.
You've disproved the theory of evolution? If so, I highly recommend you publish your work, I can guarantee a Nobel prize.
You're going to have to accept the reality of human biodiversity sooner or later. Either that or stay in a regressive intellectual sphere that refuses to acknowledge reality. Pretty much every anti-race realism video on Youtube has been debunked; Kraut and Tea and his gang of scientists have pretty much been annihilated and sent into shell shock in their efforts to disprove it to fight the "alt-right", centrists like Sargon and Leftists like Sam Harris acknowledge it, the blank slate theory pretty much has no validity and is only held in place by ideology. The Australian Aborigines have superior eyesight, the Ethiopians have superior long-distance running ability, Whites are better at Swimming, in a majority White America black boxers reigned supreme; I don't think you deny meaningful physical differences between the races, but you're someone riding on this theory that the brain is somehow completely independent of genes and the forces of evolution which leads to the success of certain genes in procreating due to traits that the are beneficial in a certain environment. Yet it's clear that if you use logic, the brain is not independent of the nature of reality. Guns, Germs and Steel is useful in that it correctly asserts that different environments are conducive to different levels of human civilisation; the conclusion however that we can derive from this, is not that there isn't a difference in cognitive abilities between the races, but that the different environments which were conducive to higher levels of civilisation and human development in turn produced a greater evolutionary selection of cognitive traits, as opposed to physical traits. The brain takes a disproportionately large amount of resources to sustain, it's very heavy, and generally a hindrance when you're sprinting across the plains of Africa trying to throw spears at wild animals. However, taking part in a complex agrarian society, intelligence and the ability to plan ahead is very useful. And if you look at all the evidence, of which there is an abundance, it supports the hypothesis that cognitive abilities differ across the races as much as physical and physiological characteristics do.
We all know what type of immigrants I'm talking about when I us the word immigrants. I'm not talking about middle-class whites from the UK, I'm talking about those coming from Syria and third world nations. The necessity for immigration for the economy is largely overstated; it's useful to have a movement of skilled labour, however large influxes of people from countries of vastly different culture and race are not beneficial for the native populace. It's just a product of a spendthrift state trying to expand its tax base to pay for to pay for it's unsustainable amount of spending.
And you're dead wrong on your immigration analysis. The funny thing is is that most immigrants commit less crime than natives, while their children commit more crime and regress towards the racial mean. I think the difference between European immigration and immigration say, to the US, is that the US has a better culture of integrating immigrants, while places like Sweden are synonymous with a parent spoiling their child with entitlements and privileges. If you were actually primarily concerned with helping the refugees for humanitarian reasons, you'd support the relocation of people in countries near the middle east, where not only is it vastly cheaper to pay for, but where the immigrants won't be forced into a completely different culture and society in which they will never properly fit in.
Also, tell me how a native Swede, who lives in a migrant areas, is a journalist with his own newspaper and regular documents crime is somehow not a good source. Most Swedes, especially those who advocate more for immigration live in racially homogenous upper class communities.
You're going to have to accept the reality of human biodiversity sooner or later. Either that or stay in a regressive intellectual sphere that refuses to acknowledge reality. Pretty much every anti-race realism video on Youtube has been debunked; Kraut and Tea and his gang of scientists have pretty much been annihilated and sent into shell shock in their efforts to disprove it to fight the "alt-right", centrists like Sargon and Leftists like Sam Harris acknowledge it, the blank slate theory pretty much has no validity and is only held in place by ideology. The Australian Aborigines have superior eyesight, the Ethiopians have superior long-distance running ability, Whites are better at Swimming, in a majority White America black boxers reigned supreme; I don't think you deny meaningful physical differences between the races, but you're someone riding on this theory that the brain is somehow completely independent of genes and the forces of evolution which leads to the success of certain genes in procreating due to traits that the are beneficial in a certain environment. Yet it's clear that if you use logic, the brain is not independent of the nature of reality. Guns, Germs and Steel is useful in that it correctly asserts that different environments are conducive to different levels of human civilisation; the conclusion however that we can derive from this, is not that there isn't a difference in cognitive abilities between the races, but that the different environments which were conducive to higher levels of civilisation and human development in turn produced a greater evolutionary selection of cognitive traits, as opposed to physical traits. The brain takes a disproportionately large amount of resources to sustain, it's very heavy, and generally a hindrance when you're sprinting across the plains of Africa trying to throw spears at wild animals. However, taking part in a complex agrarian society, intelligence and the ability to plan ahead is very useful. And if you look at all the evidence, of which there is an abundance, it supports the hypothesis that cognitive abilities differ across the races as much as physical and physiological characteristics do.
We all know what type of immigrants I'm talking about when I us the word immigrants. I'm not talking about middle-class whites from the UK, I'm talking about those coming from Syria and third world nations. The necessity for immigration for the economy is largely overstated; it's useful to have a movement of skilled labour, however large influxes of people from countries of vastly different culture and race are not beneficial for the native populace. It's just a product of a spendthrift state trying to expand its tax base to pay for to pay for it's unsustainable amount of spending.
And you're dead wrong on your immigration analysis. The funny thing is is that most immigrants commit less crime than natives, while their children commit more crime and regress towards the racial mean. I think the difference between European immigration and immigration say, to the US, is that the US has a better culture of integrating immigrants, while places like Sweden are synonymous with a parent spoiling their child with entitlements and privileges. If you were actually primarily concerned with helping the refugees for humanitarian reasons, you'd support the relocation of people in countries near the middle east, where not only is it vastly cheaper to pay for, but where the immigrants won't be forced into a completely different culture and society in which they will never properly fit in.
Also, tell me how a native Swede, who lives in a migrant areas, is a journalist with his own newspaper and regular documents crime is somehow not a good source. Most Swedes, especially those who advocate more for immigration live in racially homogenous upper class communities.
Cognitive differences between races aren't simple "evolution". Your beliefs of differences between "races" are at best misinformed and at worst disingenuous. Are you seriously suggesting that the brain is "very heavy, and generally a hindrance when sprinting across the plains of Africa"? Human civilisation as we know it has only even existed for a few thousand years. The fact that different environments are conducive to different levels of technological development isn't an argument that favours racial differences in IQ or anything along those lines, the correlation is simply that with greater resources comes greater advancement, which should be fairly obvious. Going further than that is over-extrapolation.
If you're talking about third-world refugees, just specify that. Plenty of legal immigrants from the third world do just fine, also, and even refugees manage to integrate with time.
I'm in full support of allowing refugees somewhere to stay wherever is most convenient. If Turkey would accept every refugee, that'd be great, since they wouldn't need to travel so far etc to escape war. However, refugees aren't simply accepted to the first country they apply to, hence why they must go further than the closest available country.
I'm not a fan of that source because it's a perfect example of cherry-picking. You can take ANY personal account to support whatever point you want, it's a complete waste of time. There's a reason why I don't use random personal accounts of "a businessman who's life changed when he accepted a humble, intelligent refugee into his workshop!" or whatever ridiculous "source" would support my point- they're useless.
If you're talking about third-world refugees, just specify that. Plenty of legal immigrants from the third world do just fine, also, and even refugees manage to integrate with time.
I'm in full support of allowing refugees somewhere to stay wherever is most convenient. If Turkey would accept every refugee, that'd be great, since they wouldn't need to travel so far etc to escape war. However, refugees aren't simply accepted to the first country they apply to, hence why they must go further than the closest available country.
I'm not a fan of that source because it's a perfect example of cherry-picking. You can take ANY personal account to support whatever point you want, it's a complete waste of time. There's a reason why I don't use random personal accounts of "a businessman who's life changed when he accepted a humble, intelligent refugee into his workshop!" or whatever ridiculous "source" would support my point- they're useless.
You can't deny that intelligence has a genetic basis. And you can't deny that genes that produce traits that are aid reproduction and survival in a given environment will propagate while those that do not aid in reproduction and survival do not. This is what evolution is, and yes, thousands of years will suffice to produce noticeable genetic changes, especially when there are drastic changes in environment, such as with the advent of agriculture. Human evolution is still ongoing. The hypothesis that there is no racial differences in traits such as IQ have been thoroughly debunked by quantitative genetics looking at the effect of environment vs genes on people of different races. The fact is, that the racial IQ gap has not disappeared even after generations of people living in the same environment.
You could pay any of the neighboring countries a fraction of the price that Western countries are paying for refugees and they would accept them.
And if I were bringing up an example of a single incident of immigrants committing crime, or a single personal account, say, "I went to Sweden and talked to a few Swedes and everything seemed just fine", that would be unworthy of consideration. However a journalist who lives in a immigrant neighborhood and makes an observation on the amount of crime, that is not trivial. Statistics aren't always the be all end all because they are easy to falsify and are often misleading. Boots on the ground reporting is also a valuable tool, and we can see from that that there is an abnormal prevalence of crime that is entirely atypical of what you normally see in developed white countries. Cars being burnt on a frequent basis and emergency services workers being attacked is not normal in West.
You could pay any of the neighboring countries a fraction of the price that Western countries are paying for refugees and they would accept them.
And if I were bringing up an example of a single incident of immigrants committing crime, or a single personal account, say, "I went to Sweden and talked to a few Swedes and everything seemed just fine", that would be unworthy of consideration. However a journalist who lives in a immigrant neighborhood and makes an observation on the amount of crime, that is not trivial. Statistics aren't always the be all end all because they are easy to falsify and are often misleading. Boots on the ground reporting is also a valuable tool, and we can see from that that there is an abnormal prevalence of crime that is entirely atypical of what you normally see in developed white countries. Cars being burnt on a frequent basis and emergency services workers being attacked is not normal in West.
Weird how these genetic determinists always insist on filtering using a phenotypic test.
B1rd wrote:
You could pay any of the neighboring countries a fraction of the price that Western countries are paying for refugees and they would accept them.
And if I were bringing up an example of a single incident of immigrants committing crime, or a single personal account, say, "I went to Sweden and talked to a few Swedes and everything seemed just fine", that would be unworthy of consideration. However a journalist who lives in a immigrant neighborhood and makes an observation on the amount of crime, that is not trivial. Statistics aren't always the be all end all because they are easy to falsify and are often misleading. Boots on the ground reporting is also a valuable tool
If you could just pay other countries to take refugees, that's what some countries would be doing.
Also, you know that journalist's account is still a personal account, right? I find it kind of hilarious that you find it easy to discount statistics but value "boots on the ground reporting". Personal accounts are completely worthless simply for the fact that you can show whatever you want with them.
You realise that statistics are just as falsifiable as video evidence, right? Even more so, since you don't need props and actors. Also, props for ignoring the race argument.
We get it the Earth is flat and the moon landing was a hoax.
If you've only got stupid things to say, don't say anything at all.
Your posts read like a conspiracy nut. I always read them expecting some comment about white genocide or holocaust denial. Has me in hysterics everytime.B1rd wrote:
If you've only got stupid things to say, don't say anything at all.
Evolution is a conspiracy. Sure. Get lost and post your appeal to normality fallacies elsewhere.
Damn Monsanto and the Jewish media! How could they do such a thing?
You alright there, buddy? Seems you're having trouble operating your mental faculties. At least, more than normal, anyway.
im sorry i don't communism good
the only explanation i ever got of communism was my friend getting one of my nacho chips everyday
i need better friends
the only explanation i ever got of communism was my friend getting one of my nacho chips everyday
i need better friends
Quick to insults aren't you? W/e this thread is better without all the edge you bring in.
The thread is better without the inane conversations you bring into it with your pointless comments and insults.
I think that might be because you know idgaf about your politics. Idk what happened when I was banned but since this thread has essentially become a ghost town others may agree with me.
This thread is a lost cause. I stopped actually giving a shit about it months ago.
Ayy, we get along so i’m proud of thatMomiji wrote:
thread is better when everyone gets along so do it!!!
Why do you keep posting in it then lmaoRaspberriel wrote:
This thread is a lost cause. I stopped actually giving a shit about it months ago.
He's a lost cause.
He stopped actually giving shit about it months ago though.
He stopped actually giving shit about it months ago though.
This is why I don't trust the reasoning capabilities of Green Platinum and people like him and thus don't feel the need to engage in behavior that would encourage any reciprocation of dialogue; they say stuff like "I don't care about your politics" when they were the ones that inserted themselves into a conversation that they weren't previously part of. Obviously not with the intent of engaging in any meaningful way, but simply to insult ideas they didn't like. This is something much more common among left-wing people, they are much more driven by emotions and they feel personally insulted by ideas as if it were a physical threat, and thus feel the need to engage in censorship and "attack" ideas. This is common as you have seen even among people who theoretically have the capabilities to engage in rational discourse, but purposely obfuscate the facts and antagonise people instead. "Getting along" with these people is an impossibility.
You're not giving yourself much credibility with such statements. Yes, these people exist but they definitely exist on both sides in numbers too high to be happy with.B1rd wrote:
This is something much more common among left-wing people, they are much more driven by emotions and they feel personally insulted by ideas as if it were a physical threat, and thus feel the need to engage in censorship and "attack" ideas.
Keep your anger for the leftist acting like that instead of claiming it was a leftist trait and generalising an issue that has to be either seen on a case-by-case basis or through the scientific lense, trying to find out where this tendency comes from without looking for monocausal reasons.
It is a Leftist trait. I don't care for your argument to moderation fallacies, both sides aren't "the same". I've seen enough people's behaviour on the internet, including your own, to know what I'm talking about. And if psychological studies aren't credible enough for you, I don't know what to tell you. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 091559.htm
Going for a picnic at the zoo for Christmas. What does everyone else have planned?
That explains why you tend to ignore most of what people you consider "leftists" at least.
I'll be going to the church at christmas, they're always play a self-written theatre piece there which tends to be nice.
I'll be going to the church at christmas, they're always play a self-written theatre piece there which tends to be nice.
I don't ignore people who are lefitst, I don't put any energy in to responding to people who aren't going to say anything worthwhile.
Sounds pleasant. Do they perform Biblical stories? Or is it a more secular affair?Endaris wrote:
I'll be going to the church at christmas, they're always play a self-written theatre piece there which tends to be nice.
ooooooo shit my nibba bbbbbbbbb nibba nibbaB1rd wrote:
The thread is better without the inane conversations you bring into it with your pointless comments and insults.
call foxtrot in to ref, she's too pussy to get in the ring anyways
Kisses wrote:
call foxtrot in to ref, she's too pussy to get in the ring anyways
why are you always so angry at me dude
Ommg did you just assume my emotions???!
ok, weirdo
No biblical stories but the topic is always related to Christmas.Green Platinum wrote:
Sounds pleasant. Do they perform Biblical stories? Or is it a more secular affair?Endaris wrote:
I'll be going to the church at christmas, they're always play a self-written theatre piece there which tends to be nice.
Having a part of Lukas, 2 (christmas story) being read is reoccuring in every single piece taken to the stage for example.
In one of the years I participated in the play (couple years back) we picked up the Christmas Truce from first world war for example.
Last year it revolved around the religions of the world. (hard to describe really, haha)
That actually sounds good. Let us know how this year's turned out.Endaris wrote:
No biblical stories but the topic is always related to Christmas.
Having a part of Lukas, 2 (christmas story) being read is reoccuring in every single piece taken to the stage for example.
In one of the years I participated in the play (couple years back) we picked up the Christmas Truce from first world war for example.
Last year it revolved around the religions of the world. (hard to describe really, haha)