Europe's multiculturalist (authoritarians?), trying to make mass immigration mandatory?

[SkepticThinker]

I'm using evidence and logic. I'm not so interested in anecdotal evidence or what the woke call "lived experience", that's not how science works and it's not how public policies work.

If your experience is better than hundreds of millions of Muslims women around the world, then I'm sincerely happy for you.

Sorry, what science is it that you think you're doing here?

But the data is that in general Muslim women around the world do not enjoy the basic safety and rights that women in the west enjoy.

So as another poster pointed out, it would be a good thing for these women to immigrate to places where women enjoy equality and freedom, right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Did you read the list of immigration red flags?

See this is a great example of why providing citations is such a waste of time. When provided, they are ignored, ffs.

You didn't actually cite anything that is verifiable by anyone here.

 

[Sakeenah]

Sorry, what science is it that you think you're doing here?

So as another poster pointed out, it would be a good thing for these women to immigrate to places where women enjoy equality and freedom, right?

The math is mathing

 

[icehorse]

So are you. Should you be deported?

Not true. As a secular humanist, I support freedom of religion. Islamists are highly political, and their politics include denying religious freedom to others. Don't fall into the trap of believing that Islam is a benign religion, it is also an intolerant political ideology.

 

[icehorse]

Are you going to answer my question or not? (Not sure why I bother asking. I already know you won't, because you can't.)

You're debating style is quite asymetrical. Tell me what question you want me to answer. As you can see in this thread, I'm juggling quite a few members of the woke mob simultaneously, if I miss a question it's not intentional.

 

[icehorse]

the evidence that the majority of Muslim Immigrants are peaceful law abiding citizens.

The majority of EVERY group is peaceful. It's the extreme minorities we need to worry about, always. And the polls consistently show that there are huge percentages of Islamists in Europe, and Islamists beliefs are in strict conflict with the values of their host countries.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not true. As a secular humanist, I support freedom of religion. Islamists are highly political, and their politics include denying religious freedom to others. Don't fall into the trap of believing that Islam is a benign religion, it is also an intolerant political ideology.

Forget the polls. Those are just thoughts and beliefs, not actions.

Where's the evidence that Muslims are actively trying to deny religious freedom to others in the countries they are immigrating to?

 

[icehorse]

You didn't actually cite anything that is verifiable by anyone here.

I provided a specific list of factual, falsifiable claims, ffs.

 

[icehorse]

You've yet to demonstrate this.

Is common sense ever allowed in discussions with you?

Again, this constant bleating for citations seems like a tactic for obfuscation. Over the last few months, across many threads, I've provided dozens of citations, and it has proven to be a complete waste of time. In addition, on rare occasions, I've asked for citations and been met with crickets.

There are several types of fallacies associated with constant demands for citations:

- sometimes it's sea lioning
- sometimes it's an "argument from self knowing"

What I can tell you is that I assume most people are arguing in good faith. If a good faith poster makes a claim I'm unaware of, I break out my search engine.

 

[icehorse]

So as another poster pointed out, it would be a good thing for these women to immigrate to places where women enjoy equality and freedom, right?

My search engine tells me that roughly 2/3 of Muslim immigrants are men, which is consistent with other things I've heard.

So of course, if a Muslim woman manages to immigrate on her own, that would be a good thing. But they are almost always accompanied and controlled by men, and so, even living in a western country, they still do not enjoy the freedom and equality that their western, female peers do. Of course this is not universally true, but it's frequent.

The answer here is to be honest about the misogynistic cultures that exist when Islamists are in charge and not allow that to spread. I'm all for providing aid "in place". I'm not a fan of weakening long standing immigration policies.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I provided a specific list of factual, falsifiable claims, ffs.

You just posted a list, ffs.
You didn't cite any source.
You could have pulled that list from your derriere, for all I know.

 

[icehorse]

You just posted a list, ffs.
You didn't cite any source.
You could have pulled that list from your derriere, for all I know.

Each one of the entries on the list is easily verifiable. You appear to be locked in to "argument from self knowing", and it's not my job to educate you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Is common sense ever allowed in discussions with you?

The common sense you seem to be using doesn't appear to be all that common. Not in this thread, anyway.

Again, this constant bleating for citations seems like a tactic for obfuscation.

No. It's a tool for reviewing and verifying the claims you've made! How else are we going to discern fact from fiction?

Over the last few months, across many threads, I've provided dozens of citations, and it has proven to be a complete waste of time. In addition, on rare occasions, I've asked for citations and been met with crickets.

I'm sorry but if your idea of a "citation" is to post a random list of stuff while not providing the source, then you are mistaken about what a citation is.

There are several types of fallacies associated with constant demands for citations:

- sometimes it's sea lioning
- sometimes it's an "argument from self knowing"

What I can tell you is that I assume most people are arguing in good faith. If a good faith poster makes a claim I'm unaware of, I break out my search engine.

"If you can't show it, you don't know it."
-Aron Ra

Often, I do break out my search engine. And guess what? I can't find evidence for the claims you're making. Hence my asking you for some, at the risk of you calling me a disingenuous troll.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Each one of the entries on the list is easily verifiable. You appear to be locked in to "argument from self knowing", and it's not my job to educate you.

I plopped your list into my search engine and came up empty.
Now what?

 

[icehorse]

No. It's a tool for reviewing and verifying the claims you've made! How else are we going to discern fact from fiction?

Again, you're locked into "argument from self knowing", use your search engine and open your mind.

 

[icehorse]

I'm sorry but if your idea of a "citation" is to post a random list of stuff while not providing the source, then you are mistaken about what a citation is.

I already explained that list. If you won't read what others post, why should they take the time to educate you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again, you're locked into "argument from self knowing", use your search engine and open your mind.

I just told you that when I ask for a citation for a claim you've made, I do it so that I can review and verify the claims you've made so I can tell if they accurately represent reality or not. And your response to that is to accuse me of arguing that if I don't know a thing, it can't be true?? Like, for real?

Take your condescension and accusations somewhere else. I'm done now. This is absurd.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I already explained that list. If you won't read what others post, why should they take the time to educate you?

Then you should acknowledge it wasn't an actual citation, since you didn't actually cite any source at all.

 

[icehorse]

I plopped your list into my search engine and came up empty.
Now what?

I used "religious freedom deniers" from my list. And came up with this link:

9 FAM 302.7 (U) INELIGIBILITY BASED ON HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS - INA 212(A)(2)(G), INA 212(A)(3)(E), INA 212(A)(3)(G), AND PP 8697

==

I understand that sometimes posters make stuff up, and that's a problem. But OTOH, it's also a problem when a poster demands to be educated before a thread can continue. My usual stance is to assume posters are operating in good faith, and to do a little research when they make a claim that I'm ignorant about.

 

[icehorse]

Then you should acknowledge it wasn't an actual citation, since you didn't actually cite any source at all.

I've read literally thousands of books, hundreds of them non-fiction. I've already said that I have not yet unearthed my book on immigration. So apparently in your world, every claim any poster makes must be immediately citation-able? That really curtails a lot of discussion wouldn't you say?