Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

LPjzfGChGlE

Is loading up immigrants with debt and shitty jobs like watching the kids and cleaning tables truly a good thing?

Pretty ****ed up when he puts it that way.

But at the same time, I do want to believe we can leave a better world for the next generation if we come together.

If only we could do a whole 180 in politics. Remove the corrupts, and remove big private investors in politics.

Originally posted by SquallX
Pretty ****ed up when he puts it that way.

But at the same time, I do want to believe we can leave a better world for the next generation if we come together.

If only we could do a whole 180 in politics. Remove the corrupts, and remove big private investors in politics.

So yeah. It aint Never gonna happen.

Originally posted by SquallX
Pretty ****ed up when he puts it that way.

But at the same time, I do want to believe we can leave a better world for the next generation if we come together.

If only we could do a whole 180 in politics. Remove the corrupts, and remove big private investors in politics.

The truth hurts though

Originally posted by Blindside12
The truth hurts though

Lies due tend to be sugar coated.

So the left are avoiding this like the plauge and have no response.

Originally posted by Blindside12
So the left are avoiding this like the plauge and have no response.

That is pretty much Lefty SOP.

Standard
Operating
Procedure

That is not how the burden of proof works.

So you can't refute anything he said and just offered an non sequitur

This demonstration seems more like a scare tactic than a problem and solution being identified. The message seems to be:

"We're going to run out of room, food, jobs, etc. by taking people in, and we're not making any difference! The world is doomed and we have to fend for ourselves!"

Well, people in the world can't be represented by ****ing gumballs in glass jars.

What's his main argument?

That we couldn't possibly eradicate poverty in other countries by taking in immigrants? Well, no shit. That is not the main argument in support of immigration, anyhow. The million(s) we do take in will likely be far better off here than in their much poorer and/or war-torn countries, and they often send back some of the money they've earned here to their struggling families still in their home countries. That is the true humanitarian focus in the immigration debate.

That we put a stop to immigration altogether and help all these other countries? How? Do we crack down on American corporations exploiting cheap labor in these countries, and pay them higher living wages with full benefits? Do we also provide humanitarian aid in the form of food, clean drinking water, medical care, and funding? Do we cease military operations overseas and replace it with agriculture, irrigation, and infrastructure programs?

Wow nothing you said refuted any of his claims

Originally posted by Blindside12
Wow nothing you said refuted any of his claims

So then clarify his claims.

Be honest. You saw my post was more than a couple of lines, and you chose not to read it because

a) it's hard, and
b) you've already made up your mind on the issue and are not the least bit open to anything to the contrary.

Can he prove himself right?

He did.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
So then clarify his claims.

Be honest. You saw my post was more than a couple of lines, and you chose not to read it because

a) it's hard, and
b) you've already made up your mind on the issue and are not the least bit open to anything to the contrary.

So the US can solve world poverty based on?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That is not how the burden of proof works.

Burden of Proof

1. the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge

Burden of proof is on the people who think we need to let everybody in cause "thats just the right thing to do" to hell with the people already here.

I actually agree with him in the sense that the countries that have failed these people need to find solutions to help them, and that immigrating to other better countries is not really a long term solution for most of t hem. That said, he did not "prove" anything. He made a reasonable argument with an effective, though questionably accurate, visual aide. But no proof.

Originally posted by BackFire
I actually agree with him in the sense that the countries that have failed these people need to find solutions to help them, and that immigrating to other better countries is not really a long term solution for most of t hem. That said, he did not "prove" anything. He made a reasonable argument with an effective, though questionably accurate, visual aide. But no proof.

He proved that mass immigration into the US cannot put a dent in world poverty, the proof is, We been doing it this whole time, and havent put a dent in it. The proof is we are living it.

Depends what you would consider a dent, I guess.

It might make a very small dent. But ultimately it won't solve the problem as a whole. It will help those who come here, though.

Originally posted by Blindside12
So the US can solve world poverty based on?

Again, what's the guy arguing for? It seems pretty clear he's against immigration to the US, and then very loosely ties it to economic conditions in the immigrants' home countries, as if that were ever a major focal point in the immigration debate.

The entire presentation was an oversimplistic way of getting idiots to agree with his stance on immigration, and reinforce the beliefs of the idiots who already agree with it.

Representing people with gumballs, for ****'s sake...and representing different regions of the world with jars of equal size when each region is vastly different from the other in terms of agriculture, commerce, infrastructure, total land area vs. population, etc.

FFS, he had gumballs, you can't counter that.

Originally posted by BackFire
Depends what you would consider a dent, I guess.

It might make a very small dent. But ultimately it won't solve the problem as a whole. It will help those who come here, though.

And how will it help the people that are already here competing for the same jobs, qualifying for the same social programs, and government assistance, the people that have been here, not just got here cause well "I deserve to be in America."

Originally posted by Blindside12
And how will it help the people that are already here competing for the same jobs, qualifying for the same social programs, and government assistance, the people that have been here, not just got here cause well "I deserve to be in America."

Still better than the place they're originating. Thus helping.

Originally posted by Robtard
FFS, he had gumballs, you can't counter that.

The gumbballs were representative of the numbers currently in use in immigration statistics. You hate visual aids I guess cause they smack you hard with reality?

Originally posted by BackFire
Still better than the place they're originating. Thus helping.

Helping a small fraction of people of worlds populace, but hurting the vatly more people here based on our size vs the world, sounds like a good idea to you?

Originally posted by BackFire
Can he prove himself right?

https://i.imgur.com/jp9aCtd.gif

Originally posted by Blindside12
Helping a small fraction of people of worlds populace, but hurting the vatly more people here based on our size vs the world, sounds like a good idea to you?

No, that's not what I said. I am not in favor of open borders and not against strong immigration laws.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, that's not what I said. I am not in favor of open borders and not against strong immigration laws.

Originally posted by BackFire
Still better than the place they're originating. Thus helping.

But you said its helping those people, but while helping those people it hurts others.

Helping some to hurt others isnt a solution.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
https://i.imgur.com/jp9aCtd.gif

The creator of that should be rewarded

Originally posted by Blindside12
But you said its helping those people, but while helping those people it hurts others.

Helping some to hurt others isnt a solution.

Who is being hurt in this scenario? The "hurt" is what, more competition for a job?

That's still a much better situation compared to the country they came from. So both people are still be helped overall.

So you like the idea of bringing people here from other countries to take the job of the people that are already here struggling to find them?

So the illegal who works in the fields, takes care of peoples kids, cleans table etc now needs to compete with the people that just showed up cause we cant control our borders or reduce who we let in?

If you stand in line at a store to buy someone, and someone cuts in, what do you do, just ignore it?

Originally posted by Blindside12
So you like the idea of bringing people here from other countries to take the job of the people that are already here struggling to find them?

If the choice is them being here creating a slightly more competitive low wage job market, or leaving them to starve and die, I will take the more competitive low wage job market.

Originally posted by Blindside12
So the illegal who works in the fields, takes care of peoples kids, cleans table etc now needs to compete with the people that just showed up cause we cant control our borders or reduce who we let in?

Are you actually concerned about the job market of illegal immigrants? If one illegal immigrant takes the job of another illegal immigrant, why does that concern you. In both cases, an illegal immigrant has a job. One is no more deserving than the other.

Originally posted by Blindside12
If you stand in line at a store to buy someone, and someone cuts in, what do you do, just ignore it?

No I ask them to move to the back of the line.

Originally posted by Blindside12
So you like the idea of bringing people here from other countries to take the job of the people that are already here struggling to find them?

So the illegal who works in the fields, takes care of peoples kids, cleans table etc now needs to compete with the people that just showed up cause we cant control our borders or reduce who we let in?

If you stand in line at a store to buy someone, and someone cuts in, what do you do, just ignore it?

More people living here would cause a greater demand for goods and services, which creates the need for more jobs.

What's the problem then?

Just because you say that, doesnt mean its true, I mean you do realize that right?

Originally posted by BackFire
If the choice is them being here creating a slightly more competitive low wage job market, or leaving them to starve and die, I will take the more competitive low wage job market.



Are you actually concerned about the job market of illegal immigrants? If one illegal immigrant takes the job of another illegal immigrant, why does that concern you. In both cases, an illegal immigrant has a job. One is no more deserving than the other.



No I ask them to move to the back of the line.

So if you ask them to move to the back of the line, why cant the people that just got here move to the back of the line, so the people waiting in line to do it legally get priority? They were here first.

Originally posted by Blindside12
Just because you say that, doesnt mean its true, I mean you do realize that right?

Are you suggesting that increased demand does not force businesses to create new jobs and start hiring?

Were you also one of the idiots who believed that tax reform would create more jobs simply because business owners would have more money?

Originally posted by Blindside12
So if you ask them to move to the back of the line, why cant the people that just got here move to the back of the line, so the people waiting in line to do it legally get priority? They were here first.

They should. As I said, I am not in favor of illegal immigration or open borders.

Originally posted by BackFire
They should. As I said, I am not in favor of illegal immigration or open borders.

Yea cause you are not dumb. People who want unchecked immigration cause fee fees are.

Money spent by rich developed countries on aid and debt relief to poor countries.

$160,000,000,000

Money that goes from poor countries to rich countries via enforced trade rules, rich nation's corporations and tax avoidance through trade mispricing

$2,000,000,000,000

Originally posted by BackFire
Can he prove himself right?

^ He gets it.

Originally posted by Blindside12
So you like the idea of bringing people here from other countries to take the job of the people that are already here struggling to find them?

So the illegal who works in the fields, takes care of peoples kids, cleans table etc now needs to compete with the people that just showed up cause we cant control our borders or reduce who we let in?



Y'know that cliched scenario of illegals gathering in groups behind Home Depot waiting to be picked up by the truckload & taken away to do long hard hours for cheap pay.

Do you actually see American kids, unemployed or straight out of college also standing outside Home Depot?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Y'know that cliched scenario of illegals gathering in groups behind Home Depot waiting to be picked up by the truckload & taken away to do long hard hours for cheap pay.

Do you actually see American kids, unemployed or straight out of college also standing outside Home Depot?

This guy, what is cheap pay to you? Do you think those groups are just throwing their labor at whoever despite their market value? Just kick that shit from your head, they aren't "cheap" but they don't cost employers taxes. So in that form, they are cheap but they don't work for pennies.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Again, what's the guy arguing for? It seems pretty clear he's against immigration to the US, and then very loosely ties it to economic conditions in the immigrants' home countries, as if that were ever a major focal point in the immigration debate.

The entire presentation was an oversimplistic way of getting idiots to agree with his stance on immigration, and reinforce the beliefs of the idiots who already agree with it.

Representing people with gumballs, for ****'s sake...and representing different regions of the world with jars of equal size when each region is vastly different from the other in terms of agriculture, commerce, infrastructure, total land area vs. population, etc.

Yeah because science has never used models before to explain their position.......

What would be your presentation of immigration?

Originally posted by snowdragon
Yeah because science has never used models before to explain their position.......

What would be your presentation of immigration?

Science typically has repeatable test results to back up their claims, and better models to explain their findings that ****ing gumballs in glass jars.

I don't think there is an accurate way to represent a complex issue like immigration with an oversimplified physical model.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Science typically has repeatable test results to back up their claims, and better models to explain their findings that ****ing gumballs in glass jars.

I don't think there is an accurate way to represent a complex issue like immigration with an oversimplified physical model.

Wow you are really dumb, all his numbers came from the world bank. He's using the gumballs as a visual to engage the audience rather then just sit and do a power point which apparently you prefer. You are being fcking ridiculous cause the visual smacks you with reality.

Now all you are trying to do is say "nah none of that is true there isn't a billion people Africa"

Originally posted by Blindside12
Wow you are really dumb, all his numbers came from the world bank. He's using the gumballs as a visual to engage the audience rather then just sit and do a power point which apparently you prefer. You are being fcking ridiculous cause the visual smacks you with reality.

Now all you are trying to do is say "nah none of that is true there isn't a billion people Africa"

I know his numbers came from the World Bank, dumb ass. I paid attention to the video. Had you been paying attention to my posts, you'd realize I've been criticizing the simplicity of his visual aid, which he used to misrepresent the issues of immigration, overpopulation, and poverty to make the point that immigration to the U.S. (and other wealthy developed countries) makes no significant humanitarian impact. He goes on to suggest that immigration is a bad thing, and proposes we should do something to alleviate the economic conditions of these poorer countries, though he makes no indication of what that might be.

When you have millions of people represented by gumballs, it's easy to undermine the amount of people who benefit from immigrating to the U.S., especially when you're comparing it to the total populations of the regions being immigrated from. There are also many variables to consider that such a moronic model can't accurately represent.

So what was his point? That because we take in a hundred-thousand immigrants from, say India, and they attain for themselves at the very least a modest and comfortable living, yet most of India's 1.3 billion population remains poor, immigration has failed as a humanitarian effort?

His underlying message is to keep immigrants out of the US and let them fend for themselves in their home countries.

Roy Beck: journalist, public policy analyst, anti-immigration lobbyist, and President & Founder of NumbersUSA.


NumbersUSA: organization supporting immigration reduction

Yes but we need immigrants to clean our public bathrooms, fix our roofs and do other backbreaking and demeaning labor cheap.

Originally posted by Astner
Yes but we need immigrants to clean our public bathrooms, fix our roofs and do other backbreaking and demeaning labor cheap. And they need to do that to earn economic gain for themselves and their kids in your Society. They don't mind that. We also live in a global community and often skilled immigrants are a valuable cheap resource.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Science typically has repeatable test results to back up their claims, and better models to explain their findings that ****ing gumballs in glass jars.

I don't think there is an accurate way to represent a complex issue like immigration with an oversimplified physical model.

How about something much simpler then, get a glass fill it with water now add an extra straw for every illegal immigrant.

Does the water get used faster, is their less water to be distributed when more straws are added? Hmm seems simple yet absolutely explains a complex problem with a simple model.

What I'm really interested in is maximizing the rate at which humanity can:

1. Continue technological and scientific progress

2. Use and develop them responsibily

The former I think is best boosted by making lots of really smart people and giving them resources and freedom. The latter is much harder.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
And they need to do that to earn economic gain for themselves and their kids in your Society.
As would whatever contractor I would hire. The difference is that I'd get to keep less of my money were I to hire them instead.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
They don't mind that. We also live in a global community and often skilled immigrants are a valuable cheap resource.
I have no problem with that.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
What I'm really interested in is maximizing the rate at which humanity can:

1. Continue technological and scientific progress

2. Use and develop them responsibily

The former I think is best boosted by making lots of really smart people and giving them resources and freedom. The latter is much harder.
So are you an entrepreneur or a hypocrite?

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I know his numbers came from the World Bank, dumb ass. I paid attention to the video. Had you been paying attention to my posts, you'd realize I've been criticizing the simplicity of his visual aid, which he used to misrepresent the issues of immigration, overpopulation, and poverty to make the point that immigration to the U.S. (and other wealthy developed countries) makes no significant humanitarian impact. He goes on to suggest that immigration is a bad thing, and proposes we should do something to alleviate the economic conditions of these poorer countries, though he makes no indication of what that might be.

When you have millions of people represented by gumballs, it's easy to undermine the amount of people who benefit from immigrating to the U.S., especially when you're comparing it to the total populations of the regions being immigrated from. There are also many variables to consider that such a moronic model can't accurately represent.

So what was his point? That because we take in a hundred-thousand immigrants from, say India, and they attain for themselves at the very least a modest and comfortable living, yet most of India's 1.3 billion population remains poor, immigration has failed as a humanitarian effort?

His underlying message is to keep immigrants out of the US and let them fend for themselves in their home countries.

Roy Beck: journalist, public policy analyst, anti-immigration lobbyist, and President & Founder of NumbersUSA.


NumbersUSA: organization supporting immigration reduction



So drain their home countries and make them barren watelands in terms of talent? Because liberals want to virtue signal.

Originally posted by Blindside12
So drain their home countries and make them barren watelands in terms of talent? Because liberals want to virtue signal.

That is such a bullshit argument. Make up your ****ing minds: Are immigrants mostly skilled and educated professionals, or are they mostly unskilled laborers?

It seems to change whenever it's convenient for whatever argument you're trying to make.

Just like the drop in the bucket argument Roy Beck was trying to make against immigration. So a million immigrants from across the globe who came to the U.S. and made a better life for themselves is an insignificant number to use as a humanitarian cause in support of immigration, but a few thousand people leaving their home country suddenly depletes its talent pool?

**** off.

Ahh so you have nothing to say of actual substance

People can still be low skilled workers that leave their country and take away from that countries raw gdp, worker population and taxable income for the country.

Nothing I said contradicts what I said, you lack the ability to think substantively because your just trying to win this argument.

**** off

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
That is such a bullshit argument. Make up your ****ing minds: Are immigrants mostly skilled and educated professionals, or are they mostly unskilled laborers?

It seems to change whenever it's convenient for whatever argument you're trying to make.

Just like the drop in the bucket argument Roy Beck was trying to make against immigration. So a million immigrants from across the globe who came to the U.S. and made a better life for themselves is an insignificant number to use as a humanitarian cause in support of immigration, but a few thousand people leaving their home country suddenly depletes its talent pool?

**** off. Good Post mate.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That is not how the burden of proof works.


What is this, edgey atheistic teenagers on the internet?


"Burden of Proof" is a bullshit concept that doesn't show up in almost any legit science.


It works like this:


Science A says 1


Science B says 1.2.


Therefore, Science A is not as correct as B.




You're supposed to do B if you disagree with A. Instead of saying "burden of proof! lawlz!"

If you don't want to entertain outrageous claims, then don't. If you don't want to make the effort to prove something, that will contradict the arguments and facts presented by others, then don't. But don't be lazy and take the old and tired anti-intellectual position of "burden of proof, man!!!"



Edit - I just read some of the lazy-ass arguments in this thread. His claims can be researched. "Burden of proof" my ass. Stop being lazy and search for the answers in the video. If you find that decent research supports his numbers, there's your proof. If you find different numbers, make a counter argument. Stop being lazy dipshits that just want to shit on all idea you think are not "liberal."

Originally posted by dadudemon
What is this, edgey atheistic teenagers on the internet?


"Burden of Proof" is a bullshit concept that doesn't show up in almost any legit science.


It works like this:


Science A says 1


Science B says 1.2.


Therefore, Science A is not as correct as B.




You're supposed to do B if you disagree with A. Instead of saying "burden of proof! lawlz!"

If you don't want to entertain outrageous claims, then don't. If you don't want to make the effort to prove something, that will contradict the arguments and facts presented by others, then don't. But don't be lazy and take the old and tired anti-intellectual position of "burden of proof, man!!!" The burden of proof lies with you to prove you assertation, I for one am not convinced.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
The burden of proof lies with you to prove you assertation, I for one am not convinced.


So you want a video to prove its point, eh?


How about stop being lazy and research the answers yourself? Those claims and numbers can be easily proven or debunked. "Burden of proof" my ass. Burden of being lazy is the problem.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So you want a video to prove its point, eh?


How about stop being lazy and research the answers yourself? Those claims and numbers can be easily proven or debunked. "Burden of proof" my ass. Burden of being lazy is the problem. But the burden of proof as with any hypothesis is with the person propagating it surely, or is the world flat?

The numbers are from the World bank at the time the video was made. They don't like the visual aid cause it's to real. And the whole "people are not gumballs."

Originally posted by Putinbot1
But the burden of proof as with any hypothesis is with the person propagating it surely, or is the world flat? can you prove that it is not flat, in a manner that will satisfy flat earthers? or are you just too lazy to invent a space elevator?

Changing the subject won't countermand the points made by him or myself

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
can you prove that it is not flat, in a manner that will satisfy flat earthers? or are you just too lazy to invent a space elevator? I am unable to convince those who cannot see the curvature of the Earth when looking at the Ocean because they are that retarded. Unlike Elon Musk, I am not so deluded I think I am Tony Stark. A space elevator is beyond me, sadly I will leave that to DarthSkywalker to construct from mechano or lego.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
But the burden of proof as with any hypothesis is with the person propagating it surely,

And he supplied is data. The burden is on you to provide different data. Or to prove your assertion if you disagree.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
or is the world flat?

I say the world is round (oblate spheroid):




Now both of us must prove our positions.


Okay, here:

https://www.livescience.com/60544-ways-to-prove-earth-is-round.html


See how this works?


You cannot just disagree with someone. Anyone can disagree. You must prove your position.



What internet morons like to do is just say, "burden of proof."


Pretend dude A says 33 people ate watermelon at the party because he counted all the people who had watermelon on their plates from the photos.

Dude B disagrees. Okay, great. Prove your disagreeable position. What truth is it that you wish to assert? That there were less? More? That there was no watermelon?



Disagreeing is not a position. Asserting another position, which is just as burden proofy as the original, is possible.



In other words, stop being a coward and take a stance. Disagreeing is a cowards way out and does nothing.

They are just looking to change the subject bc the virtue signaling isn't working.

We need mass immigration cause reasons

Originally posted by Blindside12



We need mass immigration cause reasons


The "Reasons" are that the Democrats want a Permanent Underclass that will blindly Vote for them no matter how much they shit on them.

Or in other words. They want to create a Political Monarchy.

Originally posted by Blindside12
Ahh so you have nothing to say of actual substance

People can still be low skilled workers that leave their country and take away from that countries raw gdp, worker population and taxable income for the country.

Nothing I said contradicts what I said, you lack the ability to think substantively because your just trying to win this argument.

**** off

No, you're just not hearing what you want to hear, and you don't know what you're ****ing talking about.

Roy Beck argues that immigration hurts the immigrant's home country's economy, while doing next to nothing for people as humanitarian cause because there are still billions of poorer people in the world...

I don't know of anyone who claimed immigration to wealthier developed countries was the solution to world poverty. Humanitarianism takes a utilitarian approach of helping as many people as possible--the numbers that count--and was never an all-or-nothing endeavor. The only thing he suggested that I found agreeable was the need to develop impoverished countries, but he shared no ideas of his own on how to do so. Infrastructure, technology, agriculture, and potable water programs seem like a good start.

Whatever losses in raw GDP a country might experience are often recouped, and then some, via remittances from immigrants who now make enough to support themselves AND their families back home.

Wikipedia - Remittance



As long as we're discussing poverty, I'd take it a bit further and suggest we need the following here at home:

*a drastic redistribution of wealth via tax reform that favors the poor working classes and the middle class

*a significantly-reduced military budget;

*an increase to infrastructure projects;

*free public universities;

*a single-payer healthcare system;

*and stricter legal accountability for elected officials and businessmen.

Eternal Idol 2020

When I get home I'll address your post

Originally posted by Eternal Idol


*a drastic redistribution of wealth via tax reform that favors the poor working classes and the middle class

*a significantly-reduced military budget;

*an increase to infrastructure projects;

*free public universities;

*a single-payer healthcare system;

*and stricter legal accountability for elected officials and businessmen.

Eternal Idol 2020

Wow. That is Full on Whiny Millennial List Right There..Even that last Point because it would not be done FAIRLY!!!!

Originally posted by Flyattractor


http://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bernie-sanders-gif-dancing-3.gif

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
http://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/bernie-sanders-gif-dancing-3.gif

Isn't that the guy YOU wanted to be Preisdent but your Party PHUKED you over for to support a Dried up Old Kunt?


https://78.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltqadsiiuI1r5qrimo1_500.gif

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Isn't that the guy YOU wanted to be Preisdent but your Party PHUKED you over for to support a Dried up Old Kunt?

The one and the same, yet once again, you assume I'll defend Democrats simply because they're Democrats and not Republicans. The DNC absolutely ****ed over Sanders, and though the Trump alternative was worse, the Democrats worked hard to earn that loss by being complicit with the establishment status quo.

It was a shitty thing to do, and by doing selling out the more popular Democratic candidate, they sold out a great chunk of their progressive base on top of losing the election. **** them for that.

But think how much happier you would be if you just put the Lefty Happy La La Sack on your head like the rest of the Fascist Posters here.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So you want a video to prove its point, eh?


How about stop being lazy and research the answers yourself? Those claims and numbers can be easily proven or debunked. "Burden of proof" my ass. Burden of being lazy is the problem.

What do you have against laziness? It's fun and satisfying.

Originally posted by BackFire
What do you have against laziness? It's fun and satisfying.

That explains so much .....

You don't like being lazy? Come on, you know you do.

I would answer but I don't want to wake you from your nap.

That's very considerate. I'd say more but, you know.

Originally posted by BackFire
That's very considerate. I'd say more but, you know.

Yeah we KNOW!!!!!!!


https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/young-man-holding-teddy-bear-taking-nap-couch-home-37035135.jpg

How did you know I sleep with a comfy teddy bear?

Cause your Teddy said that he was on a Suicide Watch because of those "Naps" on his Blog.

Well I'll deal with him then.

I do enjoy his blogs.

Originally posted by dadudemon


In other words, stop being a coward and take a stance. Disagreeing is a cowards way out and does nothing.

Good luck, trolls troll.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What is this, edgey atheistic teenagers on the internet?


"Burden of Proof" is a bullshit concept that doesn't show up in almost any legit science.


It works like this:


Science A says 1


Science B says 1.2.


Therefore, Science A is not as correct as B.




You're supposed to do B if you disagree with A. Instead of saying "burden of proof! lawlz!"

If you don't want to entertain outrageous claims, then don't. If you don't want to make the effort to prove something, that will contradict the arguments and facts presented by others, then don't. But don't be lazy and take the old and tired anti-intellectual position of "burden of proof, man!!!"



Edit - I just read some of the lazy-ass arguments in this thread. His claims can be researched. "Burden of proof" my ass. Stop being lazy and search for the answers in the video. If you find that decent research supports his numbers, there's your proof. If you find different numbers, make a counter argument. Stop being lazy dipshits that just want to shit on all idea you think are not "liberal."

I half-agree with you, but burden of proof does often work as a valid heuristic for the simple reason that the space of correct answers is usually smaller than the space of incorrect ones. It's used in plenty of fields outside of Science anyway.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And he supplied is data. The burden is on you to provide different data. Or to prove your assertion if you disagree.



I say the world is round (oblate spheroid):




Now both of us must prove our positions.


Okay, here:

https://www.livescience.com/60544-ways-to-prove-earth-is-round.html


See how this works?


You cannot just disagree with someone. Anyone can disagree. You must prove your position.



What internet morons like to do is just say, "burden of proof."


Pretend dude A says 33 people ate watermelon at the party because he counted all the people who had watermelon on their plates from the photos.

Dude B disagrees. Okay, great. Prove your disagreeable position. What truth is it that you wish to assert? That there were less? More? That there was no watermelon?



Disagreeing is not a position. Asserting another position, which is just as burden proofy as the original, is possible.



In other words, stop being a coward and take a stance. Disagreeing is a cowards way out and does nothing. No, the burden of proof is on you to convince me. I have to prove nothing. I am making no claims. That's how it works. I can even demand a higher standard of proof if I feel dissatisfied or feel the proof is cherry-picked, biased or tainted. Disagreeing shows no cowardice if you do not feel something has been proved. To say, I don't agree can be the bravest of all actions. Therefore I demand proof. See how it works?

Originally posted by snowdragon
This guy, what is cheap pay to you? Do you think those groups are just throwing their labor at whoever despite their market value? Just kick that shit from your head, they aren't "cheap" but they don't cost employers taxes. So in that form, they are cheap but they don't work for pennies.

You're all over the place with your reply...

So what exactly is the "market value" of an illegal immigrant working illegally?

So you have unscrupulous employers willing to use illegal immigrants to dodge the tax system & pay them cash in hand...but you won't find an unemployed American going for the same job as well because it's illegal & immoral?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
You're all over the place with your reply...

So what exactly is the "market value" of an illegal immigrant working illegally?

So you have unscrupulous employers willing to use illegal immigrants to dodge the tax system & pay them cash in hand...but you won't find an unemployed American going for the same job as well because it's illegal & immoral? Good Post

Originally posted by Putinbot1
No, the burden of proof is on you to convince me. I have to prove nothing. I am making no claims. That's how it works. I can even demand a higher standard of proof if I feel dissatisfied or feel the proof is cherry-picked, biased or tainted. Disagreeing shows no cowardice if you do not feel something has been proved. To say, I don't agree can be the bravest of all actions. Therefore I demand proof. See how it works?

That's not how it works. That's how climate change deniers get in power. That's how tobacco corporations got away with denying lung cancer effects of smoking for so long. Because no matter how much proof is presented you can still say "I don't agree, I want more proof"

Originally posted by Blindside12
So you can't refute anything he said and just offered an non sequitur
Something needs to be proven to be disproven. That's not really a non sequitir as it directly addresses the nature of your question.

Originally posted by jaden101
Money spent by rich developed countries on aid and debt relief to poor countries.

$160,000,000,000

Money that goes from poor countries to rich countries via enforced trade rules, rich nation's corporations and tax avoidance through trade mispricing

$2,000,000,000,000
source me?
(blindside should take notes)

Originally posted by jaden101
That's not how it works. That's how climate change deniers get in power. That's how tobacco corporations got away with denying lung cancer effects of smoking for so long. Because no matter how much proof is presented you can still say "I don't agree, I want more proof" Exactly and they do, that is the whole point Jaden. The burden of proof is subjective as are phrases like beyond reasonable doubt as reasonable doubt varies from individual to individual.You can prove anything with facts, but to do so everyone around a table has to agree on the validity of said facts.

Originally posted by Blindside12
They are just looking to change the subject bc the virtue signaling isn't working.

We need mass immigration cause reasons

Lol yep.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
No, the burden of proof is on you to convince me.

No it's not. That's an objective, that has little to do with proof. And it is a futile objective according to actual research about "convincing" people.

The burden is on you to prove why you're unconvinced if you wish to engage in the conversation. You can support that position with your own evidence and arguments.

Just posting "I disagree" is not enough.


Oh, wait a minute, we are talking in circles, now. lol

Originally posted by dadudemon
No it's not. That's an objective, that has little to do with proof. And it is a futile objective according to actual research about "convincing" people.

The burden is on you to prove why you're unconvinced if you wish to engage in the conversation. You can support that position with your own evidence and arguments.

Just posting "I disagree" is not enough.


Oh, wait a minute, we are talking in circles, now. lol I am not convinced. The burden of proof relies on the person making an assertation proving that assertation. I am not attempting to prove anything, so I need no burden of proof. My idea of reasonable doubt or whatever subjective criteria we set for the burden of proof may be higher than another's. Yes, we are in a circular conversation.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No it's not. That's an objective, that has little to do with proof. And it is a futile objective according to actual research about "convincing" people.

The burden is on you to prove why you're unconvinced if you wish to engage in the conversation. You can support that position with your own evidence and arguments.

Just posting "I disagree" is not enough.


Oh, wait a minute, we are talking in circles, now. lol

The burden of proof is on you to convince me we've been talking in circles! mmm

What's your opinion of Roy Beck's presentation, DDM?

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
What's your opinion of Roy Beck's presentation, DDM?


He opens his presentation with the following statement:

"Some people say that mass immigration into the United States can help reduce world poverty."


First question: who?


Who says this? I've never heard anyone say this. Never. Even the most libtarded of libtards don't say this. Sure, someone somewhere probably said this. Maybe even several people. But almost no one would say something this stupid.

As far as increasing immigration to the US, yes, we should do that. Our immigration laws need to be reformed and we should fix our tax system.

Why? So we get more honest tax revenues, we get more of the best and brightest, and other poorer countries can benefit from the prosperity of the immigrants.


We should expand the H1-B Visa program.



I disagree with his fundamental position that we are stealing their best, brightest, most dissatisfied, and energetic. We are not taking from those countries. They almost always give back to their families and friends. We should speed up and modernize the immigration process and make it easier for the best and brightest to come here. They will contribute. They will pay more into the system. On average, they are overwhelmingly more responsible and well-behaved than even multi-generational American Families.



Also, he gets a +1 from me on a proper and great use of "plurality" when he refereed to Mexicans and their immigration numbers. It is a concept I wish more people understood and used. For example, "White people are no longer the majority in NYC." No, but they are still, by quite the large margin, the plurality.



Conclusion: He is 100% correct in the points he is making. There is nothing factually incorrect with the statements he is making. However, his premise is a strawman. No, we cannot solve poverty with more immigration. No, we should not allow millions and millions of immigrants from all over the world to immigrate to the US. But we should definitely take in more of the best and brightest, fix our tax code to collect more taxes, and modernize our immigration laws and processes.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
You're all over the place with your reply...

So what exactly is the "market value" of an illegal immigrant working illegally?

So you have unscrupulous employers willing to use illegal immigrants to dodge the tax system & pay them cash in hand...but you won't find an unemployed American going for the same job as well because it's illegal & immoral?

Great post from Australia, apparently you know what Americans will and will not work for. The market value is obviously what they are willing to work for if you think it's for like 5 bucks an hour you are wrong, they aren't underpaid.

The reason businesses like to use day workers is the ease of adjusting pay to jobs being done at the time. Then you don't have to deal with all the red tape the govt creates with employees.

Originally posted by dadudemon
He opens his presentation with the following statement:

"Some people say that mass immigration into the United States can help reduce world poverty."


First question: who?


Who says this? I've never heard anyone say this. Never. Even the most libtarded of libtards don't say this. Sure, someone somewhere probably said this. Maybe even several people. But almost no one would say something this stupid.

As far as increasing immigration to the US, yes, we should do that. Our immigration laws need to be reformed and we should fix our tax system.

Why? So we get more honest tax revenues, we get more of the best and brightest, and other poorer countries can benefit from the prosperity of the immigrants.


We should expand the H1-B Visa program.



I disagree with his fundamental position that we are stealing their best, brightest, most dissatisfied, and energetic. We are not taking from those countries. They almost always give back to their families and friends. We should speed up and modernize the immigration process and make it easier for the best and brightest to come here. They will contribute. They will pay more into the system. On average, they are overwhelmingly more responsible and well-behaved than even multi-generational American Families.



Also, he gets a +1 from me on a proper and great use of "plurality" when he refereed to Mexicans and their immigration numbers. It is a concept I wish more people understood and used. For example, "White people are no longer the majority in NYC." No, but they are still, by quite the large margin, the plurality.



Conclusion: He is 100% correct in the points he is making. There is nothing factually incorrect with the statements he is making. However, his premise is a strawman. No, we cannot solve poverty with more immigration. No, we should not allow millions and millions of immigrants from all over the world to immigrate to the US. But we should definitely take in more of the best and brightest, fix our tax code to collect more taxes, and modernize our immigration laws and processes.

Well said, I also agree. To bad our man Gary Johnson didn't win, he spoke to the same points

Originally posted by dadudemon
Who says this? I've never heard anyone say this. Never.

You must not read much about this then.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Great post from Australia, apparently you know what Americans will and will not work for. The market value is obviously what they are willing to work for if you think it's for like 5 bucks an hour you are wrong, they aren't underpaid.

The reason businesses like to use day workers is the ease of adjusting pay to jobs being done at the time. Then you don't have to deal with all the red tape the govt creates with employees.

So you're advocating tax evasion & illegal immigrants working illegally.

Since you brought up Australia, if these "day workers" were above board here, they would be classified as sub-contractors... they do would their day's work then submit the hours along with their banking details &/or Tax File No. or Aust. Business No. (ABN) to the employers. Every thing is CONVENIENTLY electronically tracked (money changing hands) & recorded for tax purposes.

Where's the red tape there?

You seem to just want to make petty excuses for an unscrupulous business or employer to get away from paying their due taxes.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Then you don't have to deal with all the red tape the govt creates with employees.


So how many illegals do you have working for you?

You must be living the good life with all that tax money you're not claiming...

Originally posted by snowdragon
Well said, I also agree. To bad our man Gary Johnson didn't win, he spoke to the same points

Nice, high five.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
You must not read much about this then.

In the vid, he said that even the most liberal positions put immigration expansion to double at 2 million. That's nowhere near the strawman he implies in his opening statement.


Also, I said that they probably do exist but I've never heard people say that. I have some fairly extreme libtarded friends (every bit the stupid SJW types you see mocked in those YouTube videos posted quite often in the Triggered thread). They have never said something so dumb as the strawman he opened with.

The US can end world poverty.

Blow up the world = no more world poverty.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
No, you're just not hearing what you want to hear, and you don't know what you're ****ing talking about.

Roy Beck argues that immigration hurts the immigrant's home country's economy, while doing next to nothing for people as humanitarian cause because there are still billions of poorer people in the world...

I don't know of anyone who claimed immigration to wealthier developed countries was the solution to world poverty. Humanitarianism takes a utilitarian approach of helping as many people as possible--the numbers that count--and was never an all-or-nothing endeavor. The only thing he suggested that I found agreeable was the need to develop impoverished countries, but he shared no ideas of his own on how to do so. Infrastructure, technology, agriculture, and potable water programs seem like a good start.

Whatever losses in raw GDP a country might experience are often recouped, and then some, via remittances from immigrants who now make enough to support themselves AND their families back home.

Wikipedia - Remittance



As long as we're discussing poverty, I'd take it a bit further and suggest we need the following here at home:

*a drastic redistribution of wealth via tax reform that favors the poor working classes and the middle class

*a significantly-reduced military budget;

*an increase to infrastructure projects;

*free public universities;

*a single-payer healthcare system;

*and stricter legal accountability for elected officials and businessmen.

Eternal Idol 2020

Good post, but a few things.

Because he didn't name the common sense ideas "Infrastructure, technology, agriculture, and potable water programs seem like a good start" and he didn't say those key words that everybody like to say and hear, means he didn't offer solutions?

I think you can agree, just because he didn't say those words, doesn't mean he doesn't believe in them, I think you could also agree that just because someone says them doesn't actually mean anything. Pro active words are empty without proactive action behind them.

Remittances don't solve the receiving countries problems if they only supply a small portion of basic necessities from those countries. Like you said about: "Infrastructure, technology, agriculture, and potable water programs seem like a good start", if those don't exist, remittances are not going to solve the problem for the receiving country.

Also, do we know if remittances are taxable, and how much, and how much it is enforced and how successful, because that is really the only way that remittances would help the receiving country besides the tax on good purchased with those remittances.

Lets just take a country like Mexico, who is in constant poverty, but they took in 26.1 billion in remittances last year, and its their top sources of income. Meanwhile we have a $463 billion trade deficit as of last year with Mexico.

So why does this matter in regards to everything we have been talking about.

Simply, we bring in people illegally, they cut in line in front of the legal immigrants, send their money home to make Mexico richer, even though they are a 3rd world country, and meanwhile they dont help their people much and we have stacked up a $463 billion trade deficit with them?

How does it help the people in the US with this situation to be replaced with people who send their money home and weaken the job market here at home for the people that are competing with those low skilled jobs?

Yes they can come here and instead of making $10-20 a day, they can make $80-100. But how does it help the US and the people here given everything described above?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think I want to know those people. They sound terrible.
Believe me, they are.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Believe me, they are.

Got that right. Or should that be Left?

Originally posted by dadudemon

In the vid, he said that even the most liberal positions put immigration expansion to double at 2 million. That's nowhere near the strawman he implies in his opening statement.


Also, I said that they probably do exist but I've never heard people say that. I have some fairly extreme libtarded friends (every bit the stupid SJW types you see mocked in those YouTube videos posted quite often in the Triggered thread). They have never said something so dumb as the strawman he opened with.

I mean, the common open borders position is that open borders would double global GDP, so applied to the United States that should result in a pretty substantial reduction in global poverty if you accept that conclusion. I suppose there are three primary ways this would happen:

1. Helping the actual immigrants coming in.

2. Those immigrants sending remittences back.

3. The boost in the US's economic productivity reverberating.

Do I think it's possible that this is true? Yes, but I'm hesitant of course for a variety of reasons (e.g. security concerns, welfare overload).