Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
This is a win for Trump in the same way that the Dunkirk evacuation was a win for Britain.
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
Supreme court upholds Trump's travel ban
- Thread starter civver_764
- Start date
civver_764
Deity
The reason Great Britain is relevant is because it gives us an idea of what will happen if the US lets in similar numbers. Muslims are currently only 1% of the population in the US, so the negative effects are not as pronounced.
Re: "Germany is an example of good Muslim immigration":
Take a look at this.
Here are some key quotes:
Spoiler :
So basically Germans are on track to be replaced by Muslim immigrants. As the number of Muslims rise it's not going to be them assimilating in Germany, it's going to be the other way around. When you take into account the higher birth rates of migrant populations, Germany could very well be majority Muslim by the end of the 21st century. Is that what you want? Germans to be replaced in their own country? Not only that, the migrants are benefiting disproportionately from the generous German welfare state. Not only are they losing their country, they are paying for it with their taxes.
Do you see why I would want to avoid that sort of thing in my own country?
You're pointing to these tiny facts like that only 4% of German Muslims support ISIS and saying that proves your point. No, it doesn't. You're not looking at the big picture. When we look at the big picture it's clear, these migrant populations are way more trouble than they're worth. It's obvious that Germany would be better off without them. Am I wrong? Do you really think that they are adding more to Germany than they are taking? The fact that in France and Great Britain things are even worse does that mean what is happening in Germany is ok. Your whole argument is basically "well, yes, France and GB are really bad, but at least it's not so bad in Germany". That's very unconvincing.
I know overloaded you with information, and I do apologize for that. You're right, it's not the most productive way to debate. But I'm trying to paint a big picture here. Even where you get small "victories" like "oh look most of them don't support suicide bombers" there are 10 others negatives to point out.
It is an example of animosity towards the west, which I believe you asked me to source.
I never said anything about deporting anyone, I'm talking about restricting new migrants. However, I would bet you a lot of money that when a terrorist attack happens the police spend more time investigating young men than other groups. So in that sense, yes they are more "suspicious". And there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that.
It's not dehumanizing to not let someone into your country. Is Japan also guilty of de-humanizing people? Is Israel? There's nothing evil about a sensible immigration policy. Immigration should benefit the HOST country, so what is the benefit of mass Muslim immigration to Western societies? Remember - NO FOREIGNER has the right to come to this country. It's OUR DECISION to let them in. Just like you get to decide who comes into your house.
So you think there is some conspiracy in the police to only arrest migrants? That when someone says a white person victimized them the police say "oh he's white, we're not going to bother pursuing this lead"?
Muslims can integrate very well when there is only a small amount of immigration at a time, I agree. Mass migration leads to the segregation we see in Europe. And as stated above, Germany is hardly an example of "integrating very well". I'm not saying it's something inherent to Muslims, I'm saying it's something inherent to the fact we are trying to assimilate two very different cultures. Even if it was ENTIRELY the fault of Islamophobic Europeans (although that strikes me very much as victim blaming), that's still an argument against it.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
A massive course-of-the-war-changing, still-talked-about-many-decades-later PR bonanza. That's a lot.
BTW Did you notice that CNN et alii are cast as the Nazi war machine and their actions as an unjustified attack?
J
Last edited:
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
So, the words "intellectual dishonesty" mean anything to you? Because you're doing a lot of that right now.
You know pertinently well the comparison was specifically to the events of Dunkirk, not comparing the nature of the people involved themselves.
Because, frankly, while I don't buy into "Trump Nazi", there is no remotely reasonable stretch of imagination that might ever justify trying to paint people who oppose autocratic government measures that aim to keep certain religious or ethnic/national groups out of the country as "nazi". It's laughably irrational ; and cannot be honestly defended. If you really believe the comparison stand, I think there are a lot of users right here who'd like to know what you're smoking ; it sounds really potent.
(As for Dunkirk, it didn't change the course of the war much. It helped, probably, but Hitler still didn't have what it take to actually get his army to England past the Royal Navy - as evidenced by the fact he didn't have what it takes to keep the British army from evacuating Europe. Given that, a few tens of thousand of British troops more or less don't have much of an impact in the long run, compared to the sheer number the USA and even more so the USSR ended up throwing at Germany. It was a morale victory, and that's pretty much the extent of it)
You know pertinently well the comparison was specifically to the events of Dunkirk, not comparing the nature of the people involved themselves.
Because, frankly, while I don't buy into "Trump Nazi", there is no remotely reasonable stretch of imagination that might ever justify trying to paint people who oppose autocratic government measures that aim to keep certain religious or ethnic/national groups out of the country as "nazi". It's laughably irrational ; and cannot be honestly defended. If you really believe the comparison stand, I think there are a lot of users right here who'd like to know what you're smoking ; it sounds really potent.
(As for Dunkirk, it didn't change the course of the war much. It helped, probably, but Hitler still didn't have what it take to actually get his army to England past the Royal Navy - as evidenced by the fact he didn't have what it takes to keep the British army from evacuating Europe. Given that, a few tens of thousand of British troops more or less don't have much of an impact in the long run, compared to the sheer number the USA and even more so the USSR ended up throwing at Germany. It was a morale victory, and that's pretty much the extent of it)
Last edited:
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
Germany's Muslim population jumped from ~5% to ~6% during a massive refugee crisis. People need to calm the <snip> down. I could also point out that asylum is a human right, but that would be pointless since some people just don't care for this kind of social <snip>.
Do I also need to point out that John Bolton has always been a lying <snip> and that his institutes projection is only worth as much as the risible assumption that the refugee crisis will go on until the late 2050's ?
Although, knowing John Bolton he's probably planning to turn Iran into the same godawful mess as Iraq and Syria. And then he'll wotk tirelessly to start some <snip> in North Africa and Turkey, because why the <snip> not ?
Moderator Action: Foul language is not acceptable. Warning points issued. FP
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Last edited by a moderator:
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
It was, perhaps, a poor comparison, but it was the one you made. Trump is the retreating army. The media en toto are the attacking army. Masses of ordinary people put aside their daily routine to rescue their country's forces from destruction. Of all those central elements, media as attacking army works the best.
Militarily, the Dunkirk evacuation was massively important. The British Army had over 350,000 at risk. The actions of the Germans are much debated, but the rescue of 330,000 was huge. That is the manpower for about seven divisions, more than two full Army Corps, or over 1/3 of the armed forces at the beginning of the war.
The material loss was massive, but it only represented a few months of production. Within a year, many of those troops were moving across North Africa. Compare the effects of Stalingrad on the Germans. That was 90,000 from a much larger army.
Politically and for morale purposes, the win might have been even bigger.
J
Last edited:
civver_764
Deity
A few refugees, sure, but literally millions? That's not going to end well. And they're letting in a lot more than just Syrian refugees.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
The official number for Germany is about 890.000 That's literally not millions- Yeah, it's a lot, but what are we supposed to when this many people are fleeing a civil war that has been going on for five years ? Shoot them at the border ?
I'm pretty sure disbelieving the organisation of a notorious liar does not fall under ad hominem. The scepticism is further justufied by the source's BS assumption that we'll have huge Muslim immigration waves for the next 40 years. Just think about that for a second. A 40 year forecast just pulled out of ...thin air. Does that seem reasonable ? Does that seem like somebody is making a valuable contribution to an honest debate ? Or does that seem like wild speculation based on large numbers that were made up to deceive and scare ?
I'm pretty sure disbelieving the organisation of a notorious liar does not fall under ad hominem. The scepticism is further justufied by the source's BS assumption that we'll have huge Muslim immigration waves for the next 40 years. Just think about that for a second. A 40 year forecast just pulled out of ...thin air. Does that seem reasonable ? Does that seem like somebody is making a valuable contribution to an honest debate ? Or does that seem like wild speculation based on large numbers that were made up to deceive and scare ?
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
What's your conclusion?
That the countries suffering the most Islamic terrorist incidents are those countries most likely to be involved in military interventions in Muslim countries?
My God. I have read through this entire thread and all that I can say is that some of the anti-immigration "logic" that has been presented here is beyond stupid.
I'm an immigrant of Irish-Catholic descent. I came to Canada when I was 18. I am not (nor have I ever been) a member of Sinn Fein or the IRA, nor was I asked when I immigrated. I was not called a terrorist, an undesirable, or anything else. I was welcomed with open arms (with a few conditions: go to school, get a job, be productive, etc.) Did I assimilate? Of course I did. I became a productive, law abiding Canadian, and after a while, even a citizen. You'd never even know I was Irish unless I told you, or you heard me speak.
My point? Why am I welcomed into a new country, but a Syrian refugee who has lost everything because of a war that we are helping to perpetuate is not? Canada has gone to great lengths to take in as many refugees as it can vet, and we only demolished a tiny bit of the Syrian countryside. The US has a major air offensive going on and civilians are caught in the crossfire, but is America doing anything to ease the suffering of these people? People whose family members are killed, their homes destroyed, their livelihoods taken from them? No. The government wants to enact a travel ban so that these people displaced by war (that the United States has helped displace) have nowhere to go. Europe and Canada can only take in so many refugees. There is only so much room, but at least other countries are showing some compassion.
I'll do you a favor, Civver. As an immigrant, I will not travel to the US. Not for business, pleasure, or for transit to another country. Will that make you happy? That's one less foreigner entering your borders that you have to worry about. 'Cause God forbid I enter when English isn't my first language. I might try to incite Americans to speak Gaeilge or some horrible thing like that. I might take the seat of a tax paying American on the subway.
[/Rant]
Now back to your BS, misinformed rhetoric.
I'm an immigrant of Irish-Catholic descent. I came to Canada when I was 18. I am not (nor have I ever been) a member of Sinn Fein or the IRA, nor was I asked when I immigrated. I was not called a terrorist, an undesirable, or anything else. I was welcomed with open arms (with a few conditions: go to school, get a job, be productive, etc.) Did I assimilate? Of course I did. I became a productive, law abiding Canadian, and after a while, even a citizen. You'd never even know I was Irish unless I told you, or you heard me speak.
My point? Why am I welcomed into a new country, but a Syrian refugee who has lost everything because of a war that we are helping to perpetuate is not? Canada has gone to great lengths to take in as many refugees as it can vet, and we only demolished a tiny bit of the Syrian countryside. The US has a major air offensive going on and civilians are caught in the crossfire, but is America doing anything to ease the suffering of these people? People whose family members are killed, their homes destroyed, their livelihoods taken from them? No. The government wants to enact a travel ban so that these people displaced by war (that the United States has helped displace) have nowhere to go. Europe and Canada can only take in so many refugees. There is only so much room, but at least other countries are showing some compassion.
I'll do you a favor, Civver. As an immigrant, I will not travel to the US. Not for business, pleasure, or for transit to another country. Will that make you happy? That's one less foreigner entering your borders that you have to worry about. 'Cause God forbid I enter when English isn't my first language. I might try to incite Americans to speak Gaeilge or some horrible thing like that. I might take the seat of a tax paying American on the subway.
[/Rant]
Now back to your BS, misinformed rhetoric.
Zkribbler
Deity
I think more like Maj. Reno's victory as the Little Big Horn.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,224
Please, do elaborate what similarities my illiterate, Catholic, dirt-farming, Polish, great-great-grandparents had with the largely Protestant Anglo-Dutch "American" culture. Radically different language, culture, religion, customs, and worldviews.
Be honest with what you are liking. The same culture that gave us Beethoven and The Rights of Man and Citizen gave us the Corsican Anti-Christ, the atrocities of the Congo Free State, the mindless slaughter of the Great War, designing incendiary weapons to set civilian houses ablaze, and the attempt to murder and starve entire races into oblivion during the Second World War.
I'm honest with what "western culture" has as its historical baggage.
I'm still struggling to see how Minnesota is any worse off. It is certainly a much better state than either of the Dakotas, Alabama, or Mississippi.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
It's his middle name.
About that survey that says that 27% of french muslims support ISIS, remember that it's a 2014 survey (so before any attack by ISIS in France). At the time I think a lot of young people were interested in the idea of a caliphate, and liked what they saw in the propaganda videos. After the 2015 attacks the support for ISIS dropped a lot
I mean, this is manifestly untrue.
yung.carl.jung
Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious
Hey Civver!
I gotta say your last response is very poorly constructed, contains little to no evidence, jumps to conclusions and ignores more than half of what I wrote. I put a lot (~half an hour? something like that) of effort in my post and I think I pointed out how your collection of sources was very reductionist and how a lot of these statistics you posted help to disprove your own point. I'll still reply, but please don't be mad if I adjust to your stance
>The reason Great Britain is relevant is because it gives us an idea of what will happen if the US lets in similar numbers. Muslims are currently only 1% of the population in the US, so the negative effects are not as pronounced.
They are two wildly different countries and I pointed out why that is in my last response. Why would they be at all comparable?
>The report implies that Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to allow into the country some 1.5 million mostly Muslim migrants between 2015 and 2016 was not primarily a humanitarian gesture, but a calculated effort to stave off Germany's demographic decline and to preserve the future viability of the German welfare state.
This is a good thing, why are you posting this?
>If most of the new migrants arriving in Germany for the next four decades are from the Islamic world, the Muslim population of Germany could jump to well over 20 million and account for more than 25% of the overall German population by 2060.
Any single prediction that goes further than half a decade is complete bullfeathers. Honestly, I would be incredibly happy if, for the next 43 years, there is no nuclear war or global conflict. This is a complete non-argument. The numbers are not even alarming. 25% Muslim population? Who gives a ****. Isn't France close to 25%? Yet the French are still not about to be "outbred".
>Refugees commit more crimes
This is an argument you will lose. I can tell you that in advance. Once again your own source complete disproves your point. Just one quote from the text is enough:
"Die Zahl der Straftaten durch Zuwanderer stieg im Vergleich von 2014 zu 2015 um 79 Prozent, die Zahl der Flüchtlinge gleichzeitig aber um 440 Prozent."
"The number of crimes commited rose by 79%, yet the number of refugees rose by 440%"
If you actually analyze the BKA (federal crime burea of Germany) statistics (which I did. I have the .pdf, I can share the original document with you.. if you'd like) then you would realize that both refugees (and so-called "non Germans") commit less crime on average than the German citizien.
By the way.. The crimes commited are mostly "fare-dodging and forgery", ("Schwarzfahren und Fälschung") crimes that are essentially tied to them being refugees.
Your point is completely moot.
>So basically Germans are on track to be replaced by Muslim immigrants. As the number of Muslims rise it's not going to be them assimilating in Germany, it's going to be the other way around.
Your own numbers prove that you are wrong. Even if it goes as predicted, Germans will still not be replaced by 2060 (according to your own statistic).
>Germany could very well be majority Muslim by the end of the 21st century.
>Is that what you want?
Muslim is not a "race". It is a faith. My personal prediction is that religion, especially in first world countries, will play less and less of a role in the future. Them being Muslims is a non-factor.
Even if what you are saying was true, I honestly could not give less of a care. What other people believe in doesn't impact my life in the slightest. Germany could be majority Shintoist, or Buddhist, or Jewish.
There is a big difference between political islam (the ideology) and Islam (faith). The former will never find a solid base in western Europe. The latter might aswell, I would not be opposed to it.
>Not only that, the migrants are benefiting disproportionately from the generous German welfare state.
Prove it. Refugees are not allowed to work until they are granted their permanent stay. Almost all of the refugees that do get the permanent stay also get a job. Do you have a source that says otherwise? I doubt you even know how integration to Germany works tbh.
>You're pointing to these tiny facts like that only 4% of German Muslims support ISIS and saying that proves your point. No, it doesn't. You're not looking at the big picture. When we look at the big picture it's clear, these migrant populations are way more trouble than they're worth.
Entirely subjective statement, completely worthless.
> It's obvious that Germany would be better off without them.
No, it is not obvious. Make a point or just leave these kinds of statements out. If you want to say why we are better off without them then say it.
>Do you really think that they are adding more to Germany than they are taking?
In terms of financial net-gain: Probably not. Atleast not right now. In terms of supplying the German pension system: Definitely yes. If you don't care about old people, that's fine.
All in all, it's just ridiculously stupid to draw conclusions when half of them aren't even legally allowed to stay as of now. It will take literal decades to measure the effects of a migration of this scale. A lot of your post reeks of intellectual dishonesty, jumping to conclusions too fast. Feels bad, man.
>Your whole argument is basically "well, yes, France and GB are really bad, but at least it's not so bad in Germany". That's very unconvincing.
You are misrepresenting my argument. My point was that Muslim immigration does not necessarily go sour. I am not saying "it's not as bad here", I am saying "it is not at all bad here"!
>I know overloaded you with information, and I do apologize for that. You're right, it's not the most productive way to debate.
It's fine, honestly. You reacted very mature to my post and actually edited yours, that's way more than one can expect from other posters.
>But I'm trying to paint a big picture here.
Yes, I know. I also see where you are coming from. It's just that your view is incredibly shortsighted. No nuances. There is another member of his forum, his name is Funky. I had a fantastic discussion about refugees with him. He used a lot of the same sources you used, made some similiar arguments.. I've gone through this a few times, actually.
You see, I'm totally aware of all the negative sides of this grand-scale immigration. Actually, I am more aware of them then you are. I know that sounds condescending, but it's just the truth.
There are many good arguments you have yet to make: The fact that some Syrians came to Germany for economic gain, not because of persecution or because they were fearing for their lifes. I know that because I've talked to them, lots of them. You can discuss these kinds of things openly.
The fact that UAE and other Gulf States are pumping money into German/French/British Wahabist institutions whose only purpose it is to indoctrinate the easily exploitable, often traumatized people that come here and abuse them to further their ideological goal. I never see this argument made form the "right" side, you know why? Because most people on that spectrum never care to dig deep. The actual biggest problems are never named, frankly, I think people are not really aware this is happening.
I could make a lot of good arguments for you, but that is not why I am here. I'm here to tell you that this "mountain of evidence" is nothing but a "mountain of confirmation bias". Almost all of the sources you linked also made an argument for my side. Do you know why that is? Because reality is incredibly complicated. There is no "black and white" when looking at the refugee situation. There are things to gain and perhaps there is even more to lose. It is not a question of "facts", but rather a moral question.
>Even where you get small "victories" like "oh look most of them don't support suicide bombers" there are 10 others negatives to point out.
Because in that list you posted only the negative things are highlited. But they also make a lot of good points for the other side, you just have to look at the actual sources. This is what I keep telling you. I could dig up 10 examples of your own sources contradicting your points. All the "snippets" are taken out of context. They destroy your so called "big picture". You aren't interested at all in a big picture, you're interested in confirming what you want to hear. And that's really sad, because you're smart. And you're curious.
The crux of my last post you did not really get. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is enough to dispel half of what you said. The way you look at "science" or "facts" is precisely the wrong way to go about it. You have a conclusion and then you find evidence to support it. That is the worst way to do science, period.
I will simplify it even more: 1. Muslims are more likely to be terrorists than other people. 2. Therefore, being Muslim makes one more likely to be a terrorist.
This is how you operate. However, this is not how formal logic works. It is a fallacy. The most important thing when evaluating data is to be rigorous and scientifically sound.
It's very frustrating to have to deal with this fallacy over and over again. I tried giving like 3 different examples in my last post, but you didn't seem to "get" it.
I'm not even a big advocator of mass immigration. I don't paint refugees as saints, I don't paint them as helpless, or anything of that sort. They are all people with their own agency. Some are probably scammers, some are radicals, some are wifebeaters, some are mentally deranged, some are drug addicts, but the same goes for any decently sized population. You keep making general statements about this group and you lead all of that back to them being Muslims. But this is something you have to prove first: Re: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
>It is an example of animosity towards the west, which I believe you asked me to source.
Very fair point, taken!
>I would bet you a lot of money that when a terrorist attack happens the police spend more time investigating young men than other groups. So in that sense, yes they are more "suspicious". And there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that.
Absolutely, I agree. If we are talking about police work there is not. But we are talking about how refugees in general are viewed. My main point was that a general suspicion of refugees (esp. male refugees) is dehumanizing them.
Allow me a small example: Say we find out that men who are bald are 10x as likely to be pedophiles. Does this mean that we have to put bald men under general suspicion? No, it fking doesn't, that is not how the real world works. Correlation is not causation. Never, ever.
>It's not dehumanizing to not let someone into your country.
That is not what I said, you are misrepresenting my argument. But in all actuality, I do think it can be dehumanizing to not let someone in, under certain circumstances.
>. Is Japan also guilty of de-humanizing people? Is Israel? There's nothing evil about a sensible immigration policy. Immigration should benefit the HOST country, so what is the benefit of mass Muslim immigration to Western societies? Remember - NO FOREIGNER has the right to come to this country. It's OUR DECISION to let them in. Just like you get to decide who comes into your house.
You are going off an a tangent, this has little to do with the argument I was making. I am not a friend of isolationist policies, but this is not the matter of debate.
But you're still wrong. It is included in the human rights that we do have an obligation to take in refugees. Just saying, I don't want this to turn into another topic of debate.
>So you think there is some conspiracy in the police to only arrest migrants?
No, far from that actually. The police are merely doing their job. All I am saying is that both incarceration rates and arrest rates are not the same thing as crime rates. Do not treat them as interchangeable. Both arrest and incerceration rates however can be a decent indicator for criminality, but are far from a sound one.
>That when someone says a white person victimized them the police say "oh he's white, we're not going to bother pursuing this lead"?
This is a pretty embarrassing strawman, bro.
> Mass migration leads to the segregation we see in Europe.
Everywhere in Europe? Can you source this? I only know of France and GB, do you have any evidence for "segregation" of Muslims in other EU countries?
>And as stated above, Germany is hardly an example of "integrating very well".
Why is it not? You haven't tackled this issue at all in your post. Show me how Muslims in Germany are not integrated well instead of stating it.
>I'm not saying it's something inherent to Muslims, I'm saying it's something inherent to the fact we are trying to assimilate two very different cultures.
Cultures are not monolithic. There is no "western culture" and "muslim culture". Muslims in Indonesia are completely different from Muslims in Iraq.. I see the point you are making. What you are saying is that, in some points, "muslim culture" and "western culture" are incompatible, correct? Actually, I do think this rules true for some cases: Free speech, Treatment of women, Treatment of Jews, Treatment of homosexuals and so forth. But all these things inevitably change. "Progressivism" is a totally dominant ideology in the west, surpressing most others. I am not saying this is good, I am not saying it's bad. It's just how it is atm and I think we both agree on that. It has entered the mainstream in the last decades and is now very deeply rooted.
>Even if it was ENTIRELY the fault of Islamophobic Europeans (although that strikes me very much as victim blaming), that's still an argument against it.
That is not the argument I was making. The problem is not Islamophobia, the problem is general incompetence and ignorance when it comes to policy making. Frankly, I think both GB and France just utterly failed. No one did this "on purpose", it's just human error. The state failed in Germany, too, actually, in regards to integrating the Turkish workers that came in the 70's and 80's. They just did not fail as bad
With the refugee crisis we essentially get a chance to do over. I don't think we (collective "we") have gotten that much smarter, but we'll see.
No, that wasn't even implied in my post at all. My conclusion is that being a Muslim in and of itself is not, scientifically speaking, a good indicator for whether a person will integrate well or commit violent crime
I would actually say that the countries who suffer most from Islamic Terrorism are countries in the ME.. In Europe, only small terror cells operate. In the ME ISIS is on a rampage. They have to pay for our (USA, GB, Fr, Ger, Isr..) fkups.
I gotta say your last response is very poorly constructed, contains little to no evidence, jumps to conclusions and ignores more than half of what I wrote. I put a lot (~half an hour? something like that) of effort in my post and I think I pointed out how your collection of sources was very reductionist and how a lot of these statistics you posted help to disprove your own point. I'll still reply, but please don't be mad if I adjust to your stance
>The reason Great Britain is relevant is because it gives us an idea of what will happen if the US lets in similar numbers. Muslims are currently only 1% of the population in the US, so the negative effects are not as pronounced.
They are two wildly different countries and I pointed out why that is in my last response. Why would they be at all comparable?
>The report implies that Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to allow into the country some 1.5 million mostly Muslim migrants between 2015 and 2016 was not primarily a humanitarian gesture, but a calculated effort to stave off Germany's demographic decline and to preserve the future viability of the German welfare state.
This is a good thing, why are you posting this?
>If most of the new migrants arriving in Germany for the next four decades are from the Islamic world, the Muslim population of Germany could jump to well over 20 million and account for more than 25% of the overall German population by 2060.
Any single prediction that goes further than half a decade is complete bullfeathers. Honestly, I would be incredibly happy if, for the next 43 years, there is no nuclear war or global conflict. This is a complete non-argument. The numbers are not even alarming. 25% Muslim population? Who gives a ****. Isn't France close to 25%? Yet the French are still not about to be "outbred".
>Refugees commit more crimes
This is an argument you will lose. I can tell you that in advance. Once again your own source complete disproves your point. Just one quote from the text is enough:
"Die Zahl der Straftaten durch Zuwanderer stieg im Vergleich von 2014 zu 2015 um 79 Prozent, die Zahl der Flüchtlinge gleichzeitig aber um 440 Prozent."
"The number of crimes commited rose by 79%, yet the number of refugees rose by 440%"
If you actually analyze the BKA (federal crime burea of Germany) statistics (which I did. I have the .pdf, I can share the original document with you.. if you'd like) then you would realize that both refugees (and so-called "non Germans") commit less crime on average than the German citizien.
By the way.. The crimes commited are mostly "fare-dodging and forgery", ("Schwarzfahren und Fälschung") crimes that are essentially tied to them being refugees.
Your point is completely moot.
>So basically Germans are on track to be replaced by Muslim immigrants. As the number of Muslims rise it's not going to be them assimilating in Germany, it's going to be the other way around.
Your own numbers prove that you are wrong. Even if it goes as predicted, Germans will still not be replaced by 2060 (according to your own statistic).
>Germany could very well be majority Muslim by the end of the 21st century.
>Is that what you want?
Muslim is not a "race". It is a faith. My personal prediction is that religion, especially in first world countries, will play less and less of a role in the future. Them being Muslims is a non-factor.
Even if what you are saying was true, I honestly could not give less of a care. What other people believe in doesn't impact my life in the slightest. Germany could be majority Shintoist, or Buddhist, or Jewish.
There is a big difference between political islam (the ideology) and Islam (faith). The former will never find a solid base in western Europe. The latter might aswell, I would not be opposed to it.
>Not only that, the migrants are benefiting disproportionately from the generous German welfare state.
Prove it. Refugees are not allowed to work until they are granted their permanent stay. Almost all of the refugees that do get the permanent stay also get a job. Do you have a source that says otherwise? I doubt you even know how integration to Germany works tbh.
>You're pointing to these tiny facts like that only 4% of German Muslims support ISIS and saying that proves your point. No, it doesn't. You're not looking at the big picture. When we look at the big picture it's clear, these migrant populations are way more trouble than they're worth.
Entirely subjective statement, completely worthless.
> It's obvious that Germany would be better off without them.
No, it is not obvious. Make a point or just leave these kinds of statements out. If you want to say why we are better off without them then say it.
>Do you really think that they are adding more to Germany than they are taking?
In terms of financial net-gain: Probably not. Atleast not right now. In terms of supplying the German pension system: Definitely yes. If you don't care about old people, that's fine.
All in all, it's just ridiculously stupid to draw conclusions when half of them aren't even legally allowed to stay as of now. It will take literal decades to measure the effects of a migration of this scale. A lot of your post reeks of intellectual dishonesty, jumping to conclusions too fast. Feels bad, man.
>Your whole argument is basically "well, yes, France and GB are really bad, but at least it's not so bad in Germany". That's very unconvincing.
You are misrepresenting my argument. My point was that Muslim immigration does not necessarily go sour. I am not saying "it's not as bad here", I am saying "it is not at all bad here"!
>I know overloaded you with information, and I do apologize for that. You're right, it's not the most productive way to debate.
It's fine, honestly. You reacted very mature to my post and actually edited yours, that's way more than one can expect from other posters.
>But I'm trying to paint a big picture here.
Yes, I know. I also see where you are coming from. It's just that your view is incredibly shortsighted. No nuances. There is another member of his forum, his name is Funky. I had a fantastic discussion about refugees with him. He used a lot of the same sources you used, made some similiar arguments.. I've gone through this a few times, actually.
You see, I'm totally aware of all the negative sides of this grand-scale immigration. Actually, I am more aware of them then you are. I know that sounds condescending, but it's just the truth.
There are many good arguments you have yet to make: The fact that some Syrians came to Germany for economic gain, not because of persecution or because they were fearing for their lifes. I know that because I've talked to them, lots of them. You can discuss these kinds of things openly.
The fact that UAE and other Gulf States are pumping money into German/French/British Wahabist institutions whose only purpose it is to indoctrinate the easily exploitable, often traumatized people that come here and abuse them to further their ideological goal. I never see this argument made form the "right" side, you know why? Because most people on that spectrum never care to dig deep. The actual biggest problems are never named, frankly, I think people are not really aware this is happening.
I could make a lot of good arguments for you, but that is not why I am here. I'm here to tell you that this "mountain of evidence" is nothing but a "mountain of confirmation bias". Almost all of the sources you linked also made an argument for my side. Do you know why that is? Because reality is incredibly complicated. There is no "black and white" when looking at the refugee situation. There are things to gain and perhaps there is even more to lose. It is not a question of "facts", but rather a moral question.
>Even where you get small "victories" like "oh look most of them don't support suicide bombers" there are 10 others negatives to point out.
Because in that list you posted only the negative things are highlited. But they also make a lot of good points for the other side, you just have to look at the actual sources. This is what I keep telling you. I could dig up 10 examples of your own sources contradicting your points. All the "snippets" are taken out of context. They destroy your so called "big picture". You aren't interested at all in a big picture, you're interested in confirming what you want to hear. And that's really sad, because you're smart. And you're curious.
The crux of my last post you did not really get. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is enough to dispel half of what you said. The way you look at "science" or "facts" is precisely the wrong way to go about it. You have a conclusion and then you find evidence to support it. That is the worst way to do science, period.
I will simplify it even more: 1. Muslims are more likely to be terrorists than other people. 2. Therefore, being Muslim makes one more likely to be a terrorist.
This is how you operate. However, this is not how formal logic works. It is a fallacy. The most important thing when evaluating data is to be rigorous and scientifically sound.
It's very frustrating to have to deal with this fallacy over and over again. I tried giving like 3 different examples in my last post, but you didn't seem to "get" it.
I'm not even a big advocator of mass immigration. I don't paint refugees as saints, I don't paint them as helpless, or anything of that sort. They are all people with their own agency. Some are probably scammers, some are radicals, some are wifebeaters, some are mentally deranged, some are drug addicts, but the same goes for any decently sized population. You keep making general statements about this group and you lead all of that back to them being Muslims. But this is something you have to prove first: Re: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
>It is an example of animosity towards the west, which I believe you asked me to source.
Very fair point, taken!
>I would bet you a lot of money that when a terrorist attack happens the police spend more time investigating young men than other groups. So in that sense, yes they are more "suspicious". And there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that.
Absolutely, I agree. If we are talking about police work there is not. But we are talking about how refugees in general are viewed. My main point was that a general suspicion of refugees (esp. male refugees) is dehumanizing them.
Allow me a small example: Say we find out that men who are bald are 10x as likely to be pedophiles. Does this mean that we have to put bald men under general suspicion? No, it fking doesn't, that is not how the real world works. Correlation is not causation. Never, ever.
>It's not dehumanizing to not let someone into your country.
That is not what I said, you are misrepresenting my argument. But in all actuality, I do think it can be dehumanizing to not let someone in, under certain circumstances.
>. Is Japan also guilty of de-humanizing people? Is Israel? There's nothing evil about a sensible immigration policy. Immigration should benefit the HOST country, so what is the benefit of mass Muslim immigration to Western societies? Remember - NO FOREIGNER has the right to come to this country. It's OUR DECISION to let them in. Just like you get to decide who comes into your house.
You are going off an a tangent, this has little to do with the argument I was making. I am not a friend of isolationist policies, but this is not the matter of debate.
But you're still wrong. It is included in the human rights that we do have an obligation to take in refugees. Just saying, I don't want this to turn into another topic of debate.
>So you think there is some conspiracy in the police to only arrest migrants?
No, far from that actually. The police are merely doing their job. All I am saying is that both incarceration rates and arrest rates are not the same thing as crime rates. Do not treat them as interchangeable. Both arrest and incerceration rates however can be a decent indicator for criminality, but are far from a sound one.
>That when someone says a white person victimized them the police say "oh he's white, we're not going to bother pursuing this lead"?
This is a pretty embarrassing strawman, bro.
> Mass migration leads to the segregation we see in Europe.
Everywhere in Europe? Can you source this? I only know of France and GB, do you have any evidence for "segregation" of Muslims in other EU countries?
>And as stated above, Germany is hardly an example of "integrating very well".
Why is it not? You haven't tackled this issue at all in your post. Show me how Muslims in Germany are not integrated well instead of stating it.
>I'm not saying it's something inherent to Muslims, I'm saying it's something inherent to the fact we are trying to assimilate two very different cultures.
Cultures are not monolithic. There is no "western culture" and "muslim culture". Muslims in Indonesia are completely different from Muslims in Iraq.. I see the point you are making. What you are saying is that, in some points, "muslim culture" and "western culture" are incompatible, correct? Actually, I do think this rules true for some cases: Free speech, Treatment of women, Treatment of Jews, Treatment of homosexuals and so forth. But all these things inevitably change. "Progressivism" is a totally dominant ideology in the west, surpressing most others. I am not saying this is good, I am not saying it's bad. It's just how it is atm and I think we both agree on that. It has entered the mainstream in the last decades and is now very deeply rooted.
>Even if it was ENTIRELY the fault of Islamophobic Europeans (although that strikes me very much as victim blaming), that's still an argument against it.
That is not the argument I was making. The problem is not Islamophobia, the problem is general incompetence and ignorance when it comes to policy making. Frankly, I think both GB and France just utterly failed. No one did this "on purpose", it's just human error. The state failed in Germany, too, actually, in regards to integrating the Turkish workers that came in the 70's and 80's. They just did not fail as bad
With the refugee crisis we essentially get a chance to do over. I don't think we (collective "we") have gotten that much smarter, but we'll see.No, that wasn't even implied in my post at all. My conclusion is that being a Muslim in and of itself is not, scientifically speaking, a good indicator for whether a person will integrate well or commit violent crime
I would actually say that the countries who suffer most from Islamic Terrorism are countries in the ME.. In Europe, only small terror cells operate. In the ME ISIS is on a rampage. They have to pay for our (USA, GB, Fr, Ger, Isr..) fkups.
There's a certain assumption among conservatives that their culture is too weak to integrate muslims into it. Like, there's no enough intrinsic about their culture that other people would voluntarily want to join it. They assume, maybe correctly, that their 'culture' is best served by people being born into it. That muslims will not (and can not) voluntarily join it.
They might be correct. Their culture might not have enough woo.
I think liberals have a different blind spot. "who wouldn't want to be like us?!?" They intrinsically believe that people born into conservative cultures will migrate over to liberal culture over time. It might be true. And it might not be.
Conservatives intrinsically believe that muslim culture is more powerful than anything the West can offer. Now, whether someone wants to slow immigration or stop immigration would then say more about their implicit beliefs. Those underlying assumptions have different outcomes based on the speed of new people coming in.
They might be correct. Their culture might not have enough woo.
I think liberals have a different blind spot. "who wouldn't want to be like us?!?" They intrinsically believe that people born into conservative cultures will migrate over to liberal culture over time. It might be true. And it might not be.
Conservatives intrinsically believe that muslim culture is more powerful than anything the West can offer. Now, whether someone wants to slow immigration or stop immigration would then say more about their implicit beliefs. Those underlying assumptions have different outcomes based on the speed of new people coming in.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
@yung.carl.jung
OK. Fair enough. I didn't mean to imply that your post implied anything. I was really trying to draw my own conclusions.
I'd like to point out, incidentally, that the terrorist (if I can call them that) attacks in the UK have been by UK born citizens (and mostly recent converts to Islam). Unless I'm mistaken.
So, it would be unlikely that a blanket travel ban here would have any effect.
OK. Fair enough. I didn't mean to imply that your post implied anything. I was really trying to draw my own conclusions.
I'd like to point out, incidentally, that the terrorist (if I can call them that) attacks in the UK have been by UK born citizens (and mostly recent converts to Islam). Unless I'm mistaken.
So, it would be unlikely that a blanket travel ban here would have any effect.
Similar threads
