Astrologers' Community  

Go Back   Astrologers' Community > Anything Else... > Chat > Hot topic arena

Hot topic arena As the title suggest, this sub-board is dedicated to non-astrological talks on interesting, important or controversial topics.


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Unread 12-21-2019, 12:26 AM
kalinka kalinka is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 471
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

There is a lack of qualified skilled workers, jobs, migration assisance and accommodation...I would advocating tougher laws for offenders not in general.

Reply With Quote
  #52  
Unread 12-21-2019, 12:36 AM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,738
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
Just because you cannot address my examples, it doesn't make them "bad". But keep dodging, though.

Some Americans don't speak English. Also, some Americans also do not share multiple cultural similarities.

There *IS* a commonality between someone from India and someone from Paraguay--they are both from the third-world. They are also from countries that are h*ll-holes, and they are both a lot darker than white people. There, in just a few minutes, I have found some similarities. If you give me time, I can find more.
It is a bad example because you are discussing a particular situation based on something you might come up with, rather than an actual topic that is of public knowledge such as the one we are discussing now. It is thus a very hypothetical situation.

Every single american citizen speaks some form of english, unless you are counting illegal immigrants as "american", which would be ironic.

And just becuase both paraguayans and indians might be "brownish" from your perspective, doens't mean they are similar. Also the "3rd world" is a rather shallow term, you can also add developing nations into the mix, which people usually avoid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
Except it's not wrong. And keep thinking you are the arbiter of what's right and wrong. You don't put people off enough.
It is wrong, if you don't want to accept it, that is on you mate. You are now just denying reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
I never said I disliked it. I said I wanted to hear your own thoughts. You claim a causal relationship, so the onus is on you to prove it. But you weaseled out by linking to someone else' work. I guess you don't know how a proper debate works and you rely on others to do your thinking for you. But it's Ok though. I know you have trouble formulating your own argument. It is too mentally demanding for you. I understand.
I did prove it mate, by showing you facts and data gathered about the issue, that back up all the points I have made on this topic. You are just unable to refute it, thus you are choosing to deny it. But thats on you mate, not my fault you dislike it.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dirius For This Useful Post:
kalinka (12-21-2019)
  #53  
Unread 12-21-2019, 12:41 AM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,738
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka View Post
There is a lack of qualified skilled workers, jobs, migration assisance and accommodation...I would advocating tougher laws for offenders not in general.
But the problem is that screening for offenders based on the records of other goverments is not a good way to detect them. Thus you would be allowing many criminals into your country.

For example, domestic violence in countries such as Pakistan is almost never reported, because there are almost no laws to condem such crime. So if you review the criminal background of any pakistani male, you are never going to find such crime in the record.

Thus screening for criminal background is imposible.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Unread 12-21-2019, 12:50 AM
wan wan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,004
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post
It is a bad example because you are discussing a particular situation based on something you might come up with, rather than an actual topic that is of public knowledge such as the one we are discussing now. It is thus a very hypothetical situation.
But this something that I "might come up with", happens in real life. It is possible, and I don't mean just theoretically possible, that someone who uses the scientific method as you do, can come up with radically different conclusions than you. If you really want to label this as "hypothetical", you will need to prove it. And no, linking to someone else' work (again!) won't do.

Quote:

Every single american citizen speaks some form of english
Prove it.

Quote:
And just becuase both paraguayans and indians might be "brownish" from your perspective, doens't mean they are similar.
I never said they are similar. I said that there is commonality between them. And I proved it (something you have yet to do). They have one thing in common, which is that they are both from the third-world.

Also, according to your criterion, Americans themselves are also dis-similar in many ways. But why do you have no problem lumping them as "Americans"?

Quote:
Also the "3rd world" is a rather shallow term, you can also add developing nations into the mix, which people usually avoid.
Prove that the"3rd world" is a shallow term. But I bet you can't, and it's because it's an opinion. Why do you spew your opinions at me as if they had any worth?

Quote:
It is wrong, if you don't want to accept it, that is on you mate. You are now just denying reality.
If me being wrong is "reality", then surely you will be able to prove it, with your precious "evidence" and "scientific method". Go ahead. Do it. And no, "I just know I am right" won't do.

Quote:
I did prove it mate, by showing you facts and data gathered about the issue, that back up all the points I have made on this topic. You are just unable to refute it, thus you are choosing to deny it. But thats on you mate, not my fault you dislike it.
First of all, prove that I am unable to refute it. Secondly, prove that I dislike it. I am tired of you making all sorts of accusations at me.

Are you aware, at all, that debates entail formulating one's own argument? That you are not supposed to just throw down a link, loudly declare that it's "facts and data", and then proudly prance around as if you had won? Why do you have such a strong aversion to backing up your claim with your own words?

Last edited by wan; 12-21-2019 at 12:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Unread 12-21-2019, 12:57 AM
kalinka kalinka is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 471
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

You might understood me wrong. I never thought of a "pre-check". There are enough offenders, who commit new offences because they get packed in cotton by the german law. The deportation of criminal foreigners could be regulated tougher.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Unread 12-21-2019, 01:12 AM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,738
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
But this something that I "might come up with", happens in real life. It is possible, and I don't mean just theoretically possible, that someone who uses the scientific method as you do, can come up with radically different conclusions than you. If you really want to label this as "hypothetical", you will need to prove it. And no, linking to someone else' work (again!) won't do.
If you are using the scientific method, you would need to come up with evidence to support the theory, at which time we would be discussing based on the evidence. This is contrary to your original example, in which you would be discussing something not based on evidence (such as an idea you would come up with), thus a hypothetical situation.

You are now contradicting your own example, trying to make a point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
I never said they are similar. I said that there is commonality between them. And I proved it (something you have yet to do). They have one thing in common, which is that they are both from the third-world.

Also, according to your criterion, Americans themselves are also dis-similar in many ways. But why do you have no problem lumping them as "Americans"?
Because it is not a commonality. If you go into skinc olor, in the "first world" you will find similarities. Italians and Spaniards are pretty "brown" just so you know, and in some cases with darker skin than paraguayans or indians (who many them are also caucasian).

The commonality you use to group people together seems to render your very point moot, because it is common to both the 1st world and the 3rd world.

So it either makes your point non existant, or it is not a commonality among that would distinguish those countries from other ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
Prove that the"3rd world" is a shallow term. But I bet you can't, and it's because it's an opinion. Why do you spew your opinions at me as if they had any worth?
Its a term that came to existance during the cold war, to dinstinguish western allied countries (US and europe the "1st world") and the soviet block (USSR, China "2nd world"), and the countries/continents they would try to bring under their influence (South America, Africa, Asia, etc.). Ergo is not a term which correctly applies towards the discussion.

The term has no ethnical nor economical implications. Thus, either way you are using it wrong. And my opinions seem to matter to you, otherwise you wouldn't keep replying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
If me being wrong is "reality", then surely you will be able to prove it, with your precious "evidence" and "scientific method". Go ahead. Do it. And no, "I just know I am right" won't do.
First of all, prove that I am unable to refute it. Secondly, prove that I dislike it. I am tired of you making all sorts of accusations at me.

Are you aware, at all, that debates entail formulating one's own argument? That you are not supposed to just throw down a link, loudly declare that it's "facts and data", and then proudly prance around as if you had won? Why do you have such a strong aversion to backing up your claim with your own words?
I have answered you. You are just disregarding the evidence because you are unable to refute it, otherwise by this point you would have presented your own evidence.. which you haven't.

Because you are unable to refute the evidence, you are opting for a strawman, talking about how I didn't come up with them. You can keep denying it, but facts still support my point, regardless of whether you like it or not.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!

Last edited by Dirius; 12-21-2019 at 01:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Unread 12-21-2019, 01:17 AM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,738
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka View Post
You might understood me wrong. I never thought of a "pre-check". There are enough offenders, who commit new offences because they get packed in cotton by the german law. The deportation of criminal foreigners could be regulated tougher.
But at point, you not preventing the crime itself. Which is what has people worried, because crimes from immigrants could be totally avoided just by closing down immigration. Which would save lives.

The system you are suggesting takes you back to the start.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Unread 12-21-2019, 01:30 AM
wan wan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,004
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post
If you are using the scientific method, you would need to come up with evidence to support the theory, at which time we would be discussing based on the evidence. This is contrary to your original example, in which you would be discussing something not based on evidence (such as an idea you would come up with), thus a hypothetical situation.
But just because something is not based on evidence, it need not necessarily be an idea I would come up with. And furthermore, why would this make it a hypothetical situation?

Give me an example of what this "hypothetical situation" might be, so I know we are talking about the same thing.

An example I can think of, is this: someone has a cold. I say his cold is due to being exposed to a sick person. You say it's due to not drinking enough water. Both of us are basing our reasoning on evidence, however we reach different conclusions. How is this "hypothetical"?

Quote:
You are now you are contradicting your own example, trying to make a point.
How am I contradicting my own example? Show your reasoning. Also, what is this "point" I am trying to make? Tell me. You seem to be able to read my mind.

Quote:
Because it is not a commonality.
Why not?

Quote:
If you go into skinc olor, in the "first world" you will find similarities. Italians and Spaniards are pretty "brown" just so you know, and in some cases with darker skin than paraguayans or indians (who many them are also caucasian).
But Indians and Paraguayans both have darker skin colour than white people. I did not say they have the same skin colour. The fact they both have darker skin is one commonality that they have. Are they similar? No. But do they have commonality? Yes.
Quote:
The commonality you use to group people together seems to render your very point moot, because it is common to both the 1st world and the 3rd world.
How does it make my point moot?

Quote:
So it either makes your point not existnt, or it is not a commonality.
How does it make my point non-existent? And what is my point? You seem to know me better than I do.

Quote:
Its a term that came to existance during the cold war, to dinstinguish western allied countries (US and europe the "1st world") and the soviet block (USSR, China "2nd world"), and the countries/continents they would try to bring under their influence (South America, Africa, Asia, etc.).
So what? The fact that this term originated in the cold war does not render it invalid. If you say "the third-world", most people know what you mean.

Quote:
The term has no ethnical nor economical implications.
Why does it have to have ethical or economical implications?
Quote:
Thus, either way you are using it wrong. And my opinions seem to matter to you, otherwise you wouldn't keep replying.
I never said your opinions did not matter to me. I said they had no worth. Please learn to read.

Quote:
I have answered you.
No you haven't. You just threw down a link and expected me to read it and infer your conclusion from it. That is not how a proper debate works.
Quote:
You are just disregarding the evidence because you are unable to refute it,
I am not "unable to refute it". I in fact only read the first couple of words, found out that it was from some source other than you, and then I stopped reading.
Quote:
otherwise by this point you would have presented your own evidence.. which you haven't.
I don't have to present any evidence, because I have not made any claim. You on the other hand have made a few positive claims, so the onus in on you to back them up. But so far you haven't.

Quote:
Because you are unable to refute the evidence,
Prove that I am unable to refute the evidence. I am tired of your accusations.

Quote:
you are opting for a strawman, talking about how I didn't came up with them.
This is not a strawman. You ARE responsible for coming up with your own argument, not relying on someone else' work. I see that you have no idea how a debate works, and you probably think I am being a big meanie for asking you to back up your claims.

Quote:
You can keep denying it,
What am I denying? Tell me more about myself.

Quote:
but facts still support my point,
How do these "facts" support your point? Show your reasoning.

Quote:
regardless of whether you like it or not.
I never once said I did not like it. Why do you say that?

Last edited by wan; 12-21-2019 at 01:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Unread 12-21-2019, 01:39 AM
kalinka kalinka is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 471
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

as I wrote above..lack of perspective and poverty mainly cause crime. These things have to be eliminated, not the people. Most of these criminal immigrants come from war areas, Poverty conditions and corrupt circumstances. However everyone deserves a chance. Your idea is too radical...in addition my impression is that germany is still safer than other european countries. and the criminal rate of immigrants declined in the last years in germany.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Unread 12-21-2019, 02:02 AM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,738
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
But just because something is not based on evidence, it need not necessarily be an idea I would come up with. And furthermore, why would this make it a hypothetical situation?

Give me an example of what this "hypothetical situation" might be, so I know we are talking about the same thing.

An example I can think of, is this: someone has a cold. I say his cold is due to being exposed to a sick person. You say it's due to not drinking enough water. Both of us are basing our reasoning on evidence, however we reach different conclusions. How is this "hypothetical"?
Well here is the problem with your example, you are not using "evidence", because the person has only presented you with the problem, but has not provided you with any evidence. You are just identifying the problem, and then jumping to your own conclusion. You are forming a hypothesis of the possible reasons. Hypothesis do not require evidence, because they are hypothetical.

If the person had presented you with evidence, for example, mentioning that the previous day he had taken a walk while it was raining, that would then constitute data to backup a conclusion, thus forming a theory.

Your example situation is just bad, and the example exemplifying your example makes even less sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
Why not?

But Indians and Paraguayans both have darker skin colour than white people. I did not say they have the same skin colour. The fact they both have darker skin is one commonality that they have. Are they similar? No. But do they have commonality? Yes.
How does it make my point moot?

How does it make my point non-existent? And what is my point? You seem to know me better than I do.
Because you used skin color as an argument for belonging into the same category (1st, 2nd, 3rd world) as one of the only 2 connections you could provide, but said connection renders the point moot because people from Europe have similar skin tones as people from South America (both white and brown). It is a contradiction within itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
So what? The fact that this term originated in the cold war does not render it invalid. If you say "the third-world", most people know what you mean.
Sure they do, I just pointed out earlier that the term does not have anything to do with skin color, something you used to link together countries in order to place them on the same category.

I just pointed out it was wrong, and you asked me for me to explain to you what was the origin of such terminology. I provided the explanation because you requested it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
I never said your opinions did not matter to me. I said they had no worth. Please learn to read.

No you haven't. You just threw down a link and expected me to read it and infer your conclusion from it. That is not how a proper debate works.

I am not "unable to refute it". I in fact only read the first couple of words, found out that it was from some source other than you, and then I stopped reading.

I don't have to present any evidence, because I have not made any claim. You on the other hand have made a few positive claims, so the onus in on you to back them up. But so far you haven't.

Prove that I am unable to refute the evidence. I am tired of your accusations.

This is not a strawman. You ARE responsible for coming up with your own argument, not relying on someone else' work. I see that you have no idea how a debate works, and you probably think I am being a big meanie for asking you to back up your claims.

What am I denying? Tell me more about myself.

How do these "facts" support your point? Show your reasoning.

I never once said I did not like it. Why do you say that?
Sure you did, your claim is the second post on this thread. You haven't provided evidence because you don't seem to be able to come up with something backing your point, otherwise you would have by now and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I have provided you with data that shows the conditions in which different migrant groups live in the aformentioned countries, revealing some groups are at large much more succesful than others and are perfectly capable of adapting and respecting the laws of the country they settle in, regardless of a massive diference in cultural or ethnical similarity with the "host" population. Thus disproving your point. This leaves us with finding another reasons as to why other migrant groups seem to fail to adapt, and thats when I presented evidence regarding education and income and factors that would influence a group's chance of succes or not. At that point you began complaining about "posting data" and we stopped having that discussion, to instead discuss your missgivings for being unable to read facts.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Unread 12-21-2019, 02:09 AM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,738
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka View Post
as I wrote above..lack of perspective and poverty mainly cause crime. These things have to be eliminated, not the people. Most of these criminal immigrants come from war areas, Poverty conditions and corrupt circumstances. However everyone deserves a chance. Your idea is too radical...in addition my impression is that germany is still safer than other european countries. and the criminal rate of immigrants declined in the last years in germany.
But when you import a large amount of unqualified workers, who don't even speak the native tongue making it imposible for them to be employed, it is very hard to provide them with proper jobs in the short term (and sometimes even hard in the long term).

The only result, is having a rather large chunk of people with nothing to do, living on government welfare. This conditions develops into ghettos populated by men with nothing to do, who end up resorting to criminal activities as the only way to improve their economic standing, which devolves into an open disrespect towards the law.

If you add into the mix that the state is unable to properly enforce order on these areas, you end up with a chaotic situation.

Now when we go to your main point about eliminating poverty, in order to provide traning or basic education you need to spend millions of euros (at the tax payer's expense), but even if you have the money it can take a couple of years (sometimes more than 3 or 4) to teach them even basic skills in order for them to find lower wage jobs.

Finally this creates tension and resentment from the migrant population towards the host nation, and an inability to move higher in society. Which creates segregation, which turns towards radical political ideas.

Its just something whith very few solutions. It just can't be done. The risks and costs end up being higher than the rewards. It is just safer for any sane country to restrict immigration as much as they can.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!

Last edited by Dirius; 12-21-2019 at 02:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Unread 12-21-2019, 02:36 AM
wan wan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,004
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post
Well here is the problem with your example, you are not using "evidence", because the person has only presented you with the problem, but has not provided you with any evidence. You are just identifying the problem, and then jumping to your own conclusion. You are forming a hypothesis of the possible reasons. Hypothesis do not require evidence, because they are hypothetical.

If the person had presented you with evidence, for example, mentioning that the previous day he had taken a walk while it was raining, that would then constitute data to backup a conclusion, thus forming a theory.
And if this person had taken a walk while it was raining, AS WELL AS being exposed to a sick person the previous day? So how come the two of us still arrived at different conclusions?

Quote:
Your example situation is just bad, and the example exemplifying your example makes even less sense.
If you think my example is bad, come up with your own. I want to see whether you can illustrate your point that my example makes no sense.


Quote:
Because you used skin color as an argument for belonging into the same category (1st, 2nd, 3rd world) as one of the only 2 connections you could provide, but said connection renders the point moot because people from Europe have similar skin tones as people from South America (both white and brown). It is a contradiction within itself.
I never said that it's possible to categorize people into 1st, 2nd...etc worlds just by skin colour. My main point is that there is commonality among third-worlders. If you think skin colour is not a good criterion, I can come up with other things. For example, all third-worlders come from countries that are h*ll-holes. They are all less developed economically. There are probably more. My point is, "third-worlders" is a term that works. People know what you mean when you say it. It is not outdated, it is not invalid. It is a useful term, because it concisely denotes one group of humans.
Quote:

Sure they do, I just pointed out earlier that the term does not have anything to do with skin color, something you used to link together countries in order to place them on the same category.
I never said the third-worlders are determined solely be skin colour. I also did not say I could link countries together by skin colour. I was just trying to find examples of commonality. Speaking of which, why do you have no problems with calling Americans Americans (when there are also many differences among them), but you object to calling people third-worlders? Both terms encompass huge swaths of people that are very different in many ways.

Quote:
I just pointed out it was wrong, and you asked me for me to explain to you what was the origin of such terminology. I provided the explanation because you requested it.
How does explaining the origin of a terminology prove that it's wrong?

Quote:
Sure you did, your claim is the second post on this thread. You haven't provided evidence because you don't seem to be able to come up with something backing your point, otherwise you would have by now and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Then you could have asked me to back up my claim. But just because I haven't done so, it does not mean you don't have to back up your claims, either. And you most certainly should not be relying on someone else' work to prove your point. You don't seem to get this. You wont even acknowledge it, despite the fact I have brought it to your attention numerous times. I really think you are intellectually dishonest.

Quote:
I have provided you with data that shows the conditions in which different migrant groups live in the aformentioned countries,
Data only show facts. They don't give you conclusions. And they most certainly do not prove causal relationships. If I say, the Japanese have a GDP of 1 trilliion USD annually, and they have the world's largest share of people over 100 years old, these are facts and data, however they do not tell me things like, "Japan is successful because of its education system".

Similarly, the stuff you linked to only tells us about facts. I did not read much of it at all, but I imagine it says things like, the Sikhs and Hindus have fewer children, they have low crime rates, and they are this and that. These are all facts, which I do not dispute. However, these things alone do not tell me that these people are successful because of it. This is the causal relationship that your links fail to provide, and is what I have issues with.

Quote:
revealing some groups are at large much more succesful than others and are perfectly capable of adapting and respecting the laws of the country they settle in, regardless of a massive diference in cultural or ethnical similarity with the "host" population. Thus disproving your point.
I don't understand why you seem to think respecting the laws of the host country is some sort of achievement. People do not want to go to jail, so they obey the laws. It's not because they respect the spirit of the law, or that they are fully in tune with the values of the host country. It's because they dont want to go to jail.

I mean, I also obey the laws of my host country, but I can honestly say I have done pretty much nothing to advance my country, or improve the lot of the people who received me. I imagine this is the case with the vast majority of these immigrant groups in UK.

Quote:
This leaves us with finding another reasons as to why other migrant groups seem to fail to adapt, and thats when I presented evidence regarding education and income and factors that would influence a group's chance of succes or not. At that point you began complaining about "posting data" and we stopped having that discussion, to instead discuss your missgivings for being unable to read facts.
I already told you I did not read much of what you posted, and it was due to unwillingness, not inability to read facts. Why do you keep lying? Did you even read what I wrote? Do you think if you repeat a lie many times, you will appear to be less of a loser?

Last edited by wan; 12-21-2019 at 02:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Unread 12-21-2019, 02:46 AM
passiflora's Avatar
passiflora passiflora is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,125
Mods? Can you come protect this fellow from himself?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Unread 12-21-2019, 02:50 AM
wan wan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,004
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by passiflora View Post
Mods? Can you come protect this fellow from himself?
Who me? I am a woman.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Unread 12-21-2019, 02:55 AM
passiflora's Avatar
passiflora passiflora is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,125
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

No matter. Just grammar.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Unread 12-21-2019, 02:56 AM
wan wan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,004
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by passiflora View Post
No matter. Just grammar.
Ok then. So why do you imply that I have mental issues? Or whatever misfortune that you think I am mired in.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Unread 12-21-2019, 03:20 AM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,738
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
And if this person had taken a walk while it was raining, AS WELL AS being exposed to a sick person the previous day? So how come the two of us still arrived at different conclusions?

If you think my example is bad, come up with your own. I want to see whether you can illustrate your point that my example makes no sense.
The person in the example never mentioned anything about the previous day. The person just presented us with a problem (that he or she had a cold). In your example, you made both of us jump to a conclusion without evidence of the cause. Your example is just bad.

You proposed the problem, its up to you to come up with an example for it, not me. The example you provided just lacked the variables you mentioned (the part in which the person gave us evidence). You came up with a bad example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
I never said that it's possible to categorize people into 1st, 2nd...etc worlds just by skin colour. My main point is that there is commonality among third-worlders. If you think skin colour is not a good criterion, I can come up with other things. For example, all third-worlders come from countries that are h*ll-holes. They are all less developed economically. There are probably more. My point is, "third-worlders" is a term that works. People know what you mean when you say it. It is not outdated, it is not invalid. It is a useful term, because it concisely denotes one group of humans.

I never said the third-worlders are determined solely be skin colour. I also did not say I could link countries together by skin colour. I was just trying to find examples of commonality. Speaking of which, why do you have no problems with calling Americans Americans (when there are also many differences among them), but you object to calling people third-worlders? Both terms encompass huge swaths of people that are very different in many ways.
Ok.

You presented a commonality among "third worlders". I pointed out that the commonality you presented, is also a commonality they have with "1st worlders". Ergo it is not a commonality that creates a distinction that would link countries into a similar block, otherwise some european countries should be considered part of that block.

Americans are a nation of people (they recognise themselves as such) that share linguistic, historical, ethnical, cultural and most important, nationalistic relations. The same is not true for paraguayans and indians.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
How does explaining the origin of a terminology prove that it's wrong?
It proves further your point of "being brown" as a commonality to belonging into such block being wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
Then you could have asked me to back up my claim. But just because I haven't done so, it does not mean you don't have to back up your claims, either. And you most certainly should not be relying on someone else' work to prove your point. You don't seem to get this. You wont even acknowledge it, despite the fact I have brought it to your attention numerous times. I really think you are intellectually dishonest.

Data only show facts. They don't give you conclusions. And they most certainly do not prove causal relationships. If I say, the Japanese have a GDP of 1 trilliion USD annually, and they have the world's largest share of people over 100 years old, these are facts and data, however they do not tell me things like, "Japan is successful because of its education system".

Similarly, the stuff you linked to only tell us about facts. I did not read much of it at all, but I imagine it says things like, the Sikhs and Hindus have fewer children, they have low crime rates, and they are this and that. These are all facts, which I do not dispute. However, these things alone do not tell me that these people are successful because of it. This is the causal relationship that your links fail to provide, and is what I have issues with.

I don't understand why you seem to think respecting the laws of the host country is some sort of achievement. People do not want to go to jail, so they obey the laws. It's not because they respect the spirit of the law, or that they are fully in tune with the values of the host country. It's because they dont want to go to jail.

I mean, I also obey the laws of my host country, but I can honestly say I have done pretty much nothing to advance my country, or improve the lot of the people who received me. I imagine this is the case with the vast majority of these immigrant groups in UK.

I already told you I did not read much of what you posted, and it was due to unwillingness, not inability to read facts. Why do you keep lying? Did you even read what I wrote? Do you think if you repeat a lie many times, you will appear to be less of a loser?
I have backed up my claim, which is the part you don't seem to comprehend.

I provided you first with an analysis of the situation, during my first and second posts on this thread, in which I explained the conclusions I had reached.

I then provided you with statistical data from a third party site to back up my claim. Given your example, you clearly do not understand what evidence is or how it works. Whether you ignored the data, or were to lazy, or perhaps unable to comprehend it, its your problem mate, not mine.

I actually did ask you many times to post your evidence, or offer a rebuttal, which you didn't. You encased the discussion on your obsession that data and facts were somehow "intellectual dishonesty".

The reason the data backs up my point, is because it shows individuals from the communities I used as example were indeed, more educated and wealthier. There is a connection between poverty and crime, and education and succes. I didn't think I would need to explain to you that. Furthermore I have sort of explained in previous posts already.

Individuals who migrate into a country who are more skilled or better educated, are more likely to be able to provide for themselves and succeed in society in the short term, because they are more likely to find better jobs. Individuals who are not, will end up unemployed, specially when they migrate to a country in which their skills might not be in demand. This is basic social economics. Minority groups who focus on education will fare better than those who do not.


The thing about enforcing the laws is that Europe has been unable to enforce laws on many of the migrant communities properly, mostly due to political bias which seems to want to protect criminal activity. Law enforcement and police are a companion tool towards providing econmic stability.

Native people in europe generally respect the law because they don't want to receive a punishment. For some migrant communities the punishment might seem too laxed (such as when pakistani's walk free after raping women in the UK), ergo to them it matters little, so they feel they can openly disrespect them. If you combine both things (lack of enforcement, and no punishment) why would they respect it? Its more profitable for them to break the laws than obey them.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!

Last edited by Dirius; 12-21-2019 at 03:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Unread 12-21-2019, 03:29 AM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,738
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
I mean, I also obey the laws of my host country, but I can honestly say I have done pretty much nothing to advance my country, or improve the lot of the people who received me. I imagine this is the case with the vast majority of these immigrant groups in UK.
Do you have a job? Are you fulfilling a need in society?
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Unread 12-21-2019, 03:55 AM
wan wan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,004
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post
The person in the example never mentioned anything about the previous day. The person just presented us with a problem (that he or she had a cold). In your example, you made both of us jump to a conclusion without evidence of the cause. Your example is just bad.
No, it does not make my example bad. It just means it's incomplete. And if you are unsatisfied with what I have provided, you could have asked for more information from me. But you desperately need to call my example bad, though. I see that.

Quote:
You proposed the problem, its up to you to come up with an example for it, not me. The example you provided just lacked the variables you mentioned (the part in which the person gave us evidence). You came up with a bad example.
The someone having a cold example is not the only thing. What if you are involved in a philosophical debate with someone about weather abortion is murder? This issue can be a legal one, but a philosophical one as well. And assuming that you and the person you are debating with both agree it's the latter, then evidence, the scientific method..etc etc become much less important. So, how will people be able to determine who between you is right?

And if you try to nit-pick this particular example as "bad", I can give more examples. For example, the existence of God. Or what caused the Big Bang. Both examples do not seem to require the use of evidence much.

Quote:
Ok.

You presented a commonality among "third worlders". I pointed out that the commonality you presented, is also a commonality they have with "1st worlders". Ergo it is not a commonality that creates a distinction that would link countries into a similar block, otherwise some european countries should be considered part of that block.
The fact all third-worlders come from countries that are less developed economically is also a commonality. Skin colour is of no importance. It's just an example, which you analysed to death, much like my cold example. You don't seem to get the point, instead you get bogged down in inconsequential details, and you probably consider yourself hot for this.

Quote:
Americans are a nation of people (they recognise themselves as such) that share linguistic, historical, ethnical, cultural and most important, nationalistic relations. The same is not true for paraguayans and indians.
Paraguayans and Indians do not need to share "linguistic, historical, ethnical, cultural and most important, nationalistic relations" in order to have commonality with each other. The fact that they are both from the third-world suffices.

You seem to think that just because Paraguyans and Indians are dis-similar in many ways (which I dont dispute), that means they have nothing in common. This is false.

Quote:
It proves further your point of "being brown" as a commonality to belonging into such block being wrong.
I did not say all third-worlders must necessarily all be brown. I just was just trying to find ways to show that they have something in common. If you have such a huge issue with being brown, I can come up with something that offends your delicate sensibilities less. Such as the fact they are all from countries that are less economically advanced.

Do you agree or disagree that all third worlders come from countries that are less advanced economically?

Quote:
I have backed up my claim, which is the part you don't seem to comprehend.
Wrong. It has nothing to do with my supposed inability to understand your links. It has everything to do with the fact I outright reject your links. And it's because I do not want to read the stuff someone else wrote. I want to read stuff you write. I think that if anything, you are the one who is not getting it. You think by throwing out a link, you are backing up your point. You are not.

Quote:
I provided you first with an analysis of the situation, during my first and second posts on this thread, in which I explained the conclusions I had reached.
You are still unable to read, I see. I said, many, many, many times that I was not asking you in regards to the particular topic at hand. I asked why, in general, you think you are always right. God I am tired of explaining this to you over and over again. You obviously can't read, and you seem to think by throwing out words like "my analysis", "my conclusions" etc etc you are proving your point. You aren't. You are just being as unresponsive to what I wrote as a brick wall is impervious to water.

I will say it again, very slowly this time. Why do you think you are always right, in general?

Quote:

I then provided you with statistical data from a third party site to back up my claim. Given your example, you clearly do not understand what evidence is or how it works.
You are the one who doesn't understand anything. Data show only facts, they do not prove causal relationships, no matter how many times you scream "I have evidence". If you still claim your links prove causal relationships, quote them. Tell me on what page and what line specifically. Don't tell me to read it. I won't. I do not accept third-party links as valid forms of answers. In fact, I almost never open third-party links on forums. For the aforementioned reason. But also for computer security reasons.

Quote:
Whether you ignored the data,
Prove I ignored your data.

Quote:
or were to lazy,
Prove I was lazy.

Quote:
or perhaps unable to comprehend it,
Prove I was unable to comprehend it.

Quote:
its your problem mate, not mine.
My problem? This is rich coming from you, of all people. You are the one too stupid to realize that a bunch of data and facts do not prove causal relationships. But keep screaming, though.

Quote:
I actually did ask you many times to post your evidence, or offer a rebuttal, which you didn't.
And why should I? I did not set out to argue with the author who penned the content of those links you linked to. I want to argue with you.

Quote:
You encased the discussion on your obsession that data and facts were somehow "intellectual dishonesty".
Nope. I would never say data and facts are intellectually dishonest. I said for you to keep ignoring the convention that one is not to rely on someone else' work to prove one's point, it is intellectual dishonesty. But nice to see your inability to comprehend English sentences is flaring up again.

Quote:
The reason the data backs up my point, is because it shows individuals from the communities I used as example were indeed, more educated and wealthier. There is a connection between poverty and crime, and education and succes.
Correlation does not imply causation. Do you know what this means?

Quote:
Individuals who migrate into a country who are more skilled or better educated, are more likely to be able to provide for themselves and succeed in society in the short term, because they are more likely to find better jobs. Individuals who are not, will end up unemployed, specially when they migrate to a country in which their skills might not be in demand. This is basic social economics. Minority groups who focus on education will fare better than those who do not.
Why did you mention immigrants obeying the rules of their host countries as if this were some sort of achievement?

Quote:
Perhaps the reason you were unable to comprehend my point is because I did not properly explained the most basic theorems of economic theory most people already know.
A barb embedded in an otherwise innocuous statement! I am impressed. I guess in addition to being intellectually dishonest, you are also sly and underhanded. And crafty. Ever thought about working for the feds? They'd love someone like you.

Quote:
But then again, if you want to have an adult discussion some knowledge on your part is expected.,
I don't think you get to lecture anybody on having the knowledge to have an adult discussion. You think by throwing out a few links, that means you are backing up your claims. Someone help me, my sides are splitting.

Last edited by wan; 12-21-2019 at 04:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Unread 12-21-2019, 04:08 AM
wan wan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,004
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post
Do you have a job? Are you fulfilling a need in society?
Yes I do have a job. But having a job is the barest minimum of being a citizen. I do not consider it to be some kind of achievement.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Unread 12-21-2019, 04:48 AM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,738
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
No, it does not make my example bad. It just means it's incomplete. And if you are unsatisfied with what I have provided, you could have asked for more information from me. But you desperately need to call my example bad, though. I see that.

The someone having a cold example is not the only thing. What if you are involved in a philosophical debate with someone about weather abortion is murder? This issue can be a legal one, but a philosophical one as well. And assuming that you and the person you are debating with both agree it's the latter, then evidence, the scientific method..etc etc become much less important. So, how will people be able to determine who between you is right?


And if you try to nit-pick this particular example as "bad", I can give more examples. For example, the existence of God. Or what caused the Big Bang. Both examples do not seem to require the use of evidence much.
An incomplete example is a bad example, because it does not work to exemplify your point.

The discussion about abortion is about evidence. What you discuss is usually whether the fetus is a life and thus rendered protection by human rights, which you reach through scientific data. Most pro-abortionists don't deny the murderous nature of their claim, they just suggest that a woman's right to choose should have priority - which is about the legality as you pointed out.

The big bang theory existance is dependant on the scientific data that backs it up, ergo, not the type of example that backs your original argument.

The discussion about the existance of God is also an argument about evidence. In fact the lack of evidence is what usually makes people claim God does not exist. If you disregard evidence, then there is no argument to be had.

All examples that are dependant on evidence being provided or not to say such things.

Your original point was about debating something that does not require evidence. None of these examples fit that description.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
The fact all third-worlders come from countries that are less developed economically is also a commonality. Skin colour is of no importance. It's just an example, which you analysed to death, much like my cold example. You don't seem to get the point, instead you get bogged down in inconsequential details, and you probably consider yourself hot for this.

Paraguayans and Indians do not need to share "linguistic, historical, ethnical, cultural and most important, nationalistic relations" in order to have commonality with each other. The fact that they are both from the third-world suffices.

You seem to think that just because Paraguyans and Indians are dis-similar in many ways (which I dont dispute), that means they have nothing in common. This is false.
I just found your color example wrong and refuted it, you are the one who keeps bringing it up, after having thought of it in the first place.

Actually you are wrong again about economic commonality.

India is the fifth country in the world ranked by GDP, competing with France and the UK. The economic growth in India has been soaring for the past 20 years. Also the poverty rate in India is 21% which is similar to the UK's 20% poverty rate. In contrast, Paraguay's GDP is much much lower, and its poverty rate much more higher. The only diference between the UK and India when it comes to economics is GDP per capita (how it is distributed), but the country as a whole is surpassing the economic standards of what you call "the first world". Also unemployment in India, and Paraguay is lower than some countries such as France (6% vs 8%).

So it seems your economic theory doesn't hold very true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
Do you agree or disagree that all third worlders come from countries that are less advanced economically?
Sorry, but the facts disagree on that one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
Wrong. It has nothing with my supposed inability to understand your links. It has everything to do with the fact I outright reject your links.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
You are still unable to read, I see. I said, many, many, many times that I was not asking you in regards to the particular topic at hand. I asked why, in general, you think you are always right. God I am tired of explaining this to you over and over again. You obviously can't read, and you seem to think by throwing out words like "my analysis", "my conclusions" etc etc you are proving your point. You aren't. You are just being as unresponsive to what I wrote as a brick wall is impervious to water.

I will say it again, very slowly this time. Why do you think you are always right, in general?
Because I'm using data. How hard is it to understand? If u dislike my attitude, that is another thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
You are the one who doesn't understand anything. Data show only facts, they do not prove causal relationships, no matter how many times you scream "I have evidence". If you still claim your links prove causal relationships, quote them. Tell me on what page and what line specifically. Don't tell me to read it. I won't. I do not accept third-party links as valid forms of answers. In fact, I almost never open third-party links on forums. For the aforementioned reason. But also for computer security reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
Prove I ignored your data.
Prove I was lazy.
Prove I was unable to comprehend it.
Your own quote here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
Don't tell me to read it. I won't.
---------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
My problem? This is rich coming from you, of all people. You are the one too stupid to realize that a bunch of data and facts do not prove causal relationships. But keep screaming, though.

And why should I? I did not set out to argue with the author who penned the content of those links you linked to. I want to argue with you.

Nope. I would never say data and facts are intellectually dishonest. I said for you to keep ignoring the convention that one is not to rely on someone else' work to prove one's point, is intellectual dishonesty. But nice to see your inability to comprehend English sentences is flaring up again.

Why did you mention immigrants obeying the rules of their host countries as if this were some sort of achievement?

A barb embedded in an otherwise innocuous statement! I am impressed. I guess in addition to being intellectually dishonest, you are also sly and underhanded. And crafty. Ever thought about working for the feds? They'd love someone like you.

I don't think you get to lecture anybody on having the knowledge to have an adult discussion. You think by throwing out a few links, that means you are backing up your claims. Someone help me, my sides are splitting.
Again, I am sorry if you can't understan the data. It is not my fault that you don't understand how evidence works.

Because in every single statistic done in every country in the world, shows a correlation between a level of education and economic succes. Ergo, individuals who are better prepared are going to fare better in a given society. I have said this many times through out this post. This is common knowledge to anyone with a primary education. I wasn't going to link to you every single chart of every single country on this, so I limited myself to posting about two ethnic communities in one of each country. I showed you an ethnic minority group who is doing well, and one which isn't.

You disliked that and said it was intellectual dishonesty and what not.

It seems that you were expecting for me to cite you every single study done on this. I wasn't going to. So I went for a specific example.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!

Last edited by Dirius; 12-21-2019 at 05:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Unread 12-21-2019, 04:51 AM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,738
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wan View Post
Correlation does not imply causation. Do you know what this means?
It seems you don't understand how evidence works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correl...mply_causation

Use of correlation as scientific evidence

Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables – they are observed to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is often not accepted as a legitimate form of argument.

However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence. Since it may be difficult or ethically impossible to run controlled double-blinded studies, correlational evidence from several different angles may be useful for prediction despite failing to provide evidence for causation.

Correlation is a valuable type of scientific evidence in fields such as medicine, psychology, and sociology. But first correlations must be confirmed as real, and then every possible causative relationship must be systematically explored.
-----------------------------

To put it in simple terms so you can understand. You are not going to find many (if any) studies that will point you to a direct causation in areas such as these, because it would be imposible to interview every single person that is poor, or not doing well, or find enough variables too similar to analyze. Thus we base data on correlation in areas such as sociology, which found in high amounts accross multiple groups at different points in time, provide you with data to formulate a theory. What you do is take different perspectives, which is what I have done regarding the issue.

You can keep repeating the slogan as many times as you need, but it just reveals the little understanding you posses in such matters. You don't seem to understand how evidence works.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!

Last edited by Dirius; 12-21-2019 at 05:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Unread 12-21-2019, 12:28 PM
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 3,702
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post
how so? /almost10chars
I don't know who is more cuck here, Germany, or the libertarian 3rd worlder that acts against his best interests, and who has to agree with the racist that the 3rd world is what it is only because of the biology/choices of its people, without any cultural/environmental feedback loop whatsoever. The best interests of the individual do not always coincide with the best interests of the ideology.

Last edited by petosiris; 12-21-2019 at 12:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Unread 12-21-2019, 02:53 PM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,738
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
I don't know who is more cuck here, Germany, or the libertarian 3rd worlder that acts against his best interests, and who has to agree with the racist that the 3rd world is what it is only because of the biology/choices of its people, without any cultural/environmental feedback loop whatsoever. The best interests of the individual do not always coincide with the best interests of the ideology.
Quite the contrary, the objection is regarding the racist implication, instead of the interests of the nation. Immigration should be controlled because massive immigration has multiple negative implications, but there is no need to say immigration is bad. After all, europeans have migrated to multiple parts of the world. Where are you from peto?
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Unread 12-21-2019, 04:03 PM
wan wan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,004
Re: Will Germany and Britain ever be great again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post
An incomplete example is a bad example, because it does not work to exemplify your point.
I don't think it's bad. It is merely incomplete, and requires me to furnish more details to make it work. Anyway, I don't think having a good example is super-important. I was just trying to make you see my point. But all you seem to do is ignore what the point the example is trying to illustrate, and instead, get bogged down in criticizing the details of said example. This does not serve much purpose.

Quote:

The discussion about abortion is about evidence.
Only if you treat it as a legal argument. If you approach it as a philosophical debate, you do not require much evidence.

Quote:
What you discuss is usually whether the fetus is a life and thus rendered protection by human rights, which you reach through scientific data.
How does using scientific data tell us whether the fetus deserves human rights? I agree that one might need scientific data to determine whether the fetus is human life. But scientific data do not tell us whether the fetus deserves protection. The latter is a philosophical issue.

Quote:
Most pro-abortionists don't deny the murderous nature of their claim, they just suggest that a woman's right to choose should have priority - which is about the legality as you pointed out.

The big bang theory existance is dependant on the scientific data that backs it up, ergo, not the type of example that backs your original argument.
How do you know that the scientific method would work to describe anything that happened before the Big Bang? We don't even know what existed before the Big Bang. For all we know, the scientific method, evidence etc etc might have no place in pre-Big Bang states of existence.

Furthermore, if your scientific method is so hot, then use said method and tell me what existed before the Big Bang. Go ahead, tell me.

Quote:
The discussion about the existance of God is also an argument about evidence. In fact the lack of evidence is what usually makes people claim God does not exist. If you disregard evidence, then there is no argument to be had.
If what you say is true, then this debate will have been resolved a long time ago. And we will all have reached the conclusion that there is no God (since as you pointed out, there is no evidence for God). But we all know this debate is still raging on, and some people still believe in God. Therefore, you are wrong.

Quote:
All examples that are dependant on evidence being provided or not to say such things.

Your original point was about debating something that does not require evidence. None of these examples fit that description.
Then let me try and come up with more examples. How about this, should we have the death penalty? This debate requires no evidence, as far as I can see. Heck, you can even have "debates" with someone over whether you should have sushi or burrito for lunch. This also requires no scientific method nor evidence. Anyway, my point is that, there are discussions where the scientific method has no place in.

Quote:
I just found your color example wrong and refuted it, you are the one who keeps bringing it up, after having thought of it in the first place.

Actually you are wrong again about economic commonality.


India is the fifth country in the world ranked by GDP, competing with France and the UK. The economic growth in India has been soaring for the past 20 years. Also the poverty rate in India is 21% which is similar to the UK's 20% poverty rate. In contrast, Paraguay's GDP is much much lower, and its poverty rate much more higher. The only diference between the UK and India when it comes to economics is GDP per capita (how it is distributed), but the country as a whole is surpassing the economic standards of what you call "the first world". Also unemployment in India, and Paraguay is lower than some countries such as France (6% vs 8%).

So it seems your economic theory doesn't hold very true.
If India is truly doing so well economically, then perhaps it does not belong in the ranks of the third-world. Also, if India is so great, why do Indians still try so hard to immigrate to the West?

Quote:
Sorry, but the facts disagree on that one.
How so?

Quote:
Because I'm using data. How hard is it to understand? If u dislike my attitude, that is another thing.



Your own quote here:


---------------------------------------------------------


Again, I am sorry if you can't understan the data. It is not my fault that you don't understand how evidence works.

Because in every single statistic done in every country in the world, shows a correlation between a level of education and economic succes.
Indeed, it shows correlation. However, you claimed causation. And correlation does not imply causation. Therefore, you are the one who does not understand how things work.

Quote:
Ergo, individuals who are better prepared are going to fare better in a given society. I have said this many times through out this post. This is common knowledge to anyone with a primary education.
I never said better prepared individuals are going to fare worse. What are you on about?
Quote:
I wasn't going to link to you every single chart of every single country on this, so I limited myself to posting about two ethnic communities in one of each country. I showed you an ethnic minority group who is doing well, and one which isn't.

You disliked that and said it was intellectual dishonesty and what not.
I never said your data is intellectual dishonesty. I said the fact you keep refusing to back up your claims using your own words is intellectual dishonesty.

Do you agree or disagree that people should back up their claims with their own words, instead of throwing down a link?

Quote:
It seems that you were expecting for me to cite you every single study done on this. I wasn't going to. So I went for a specific example.
Where did I say I expected you to cite every single study?

Last edited by wan; 12-21-2019 at 04:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 06:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2018, AstrologyWeekly.com. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly.com and their respective creators. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent.