You're using nothing against me. Having no problem with asylum seekers coming into the US answered your question already, but that answer destroys your games, so here you are doing flips.
Didn't take long for your bigotry to poke out. FYI, you get away with it in the OTF, you might not want to go full racist in the GDF.
Originally posted by It's xyz!I'll ask you again robtard, but I'll advise you that attacking my character does not do well in discussing your metaphor that letting people in your house is the same as letting people into the country.
"in your house" is the same as "in your country"Do you think it's a good idea to let 25 random strangers in your house?
The question is, would you let 25 random strangers into your house?
Also, you realise that you don't own the USA, right?
HYG again, quoting where your question was already answered:
Originally posted by Robtard
It was an analogy to show a point. How it relates to this thread, "in your house" is the same as "in your country"; I have no real problem with asylum seekers coming into the US.
This of course won't stop your lunatic games.
Saying "your country" or "my country" is a figure of speech, it doesn't imply actual ownership, how can you not realize that.
The problem I have robtard is you already answered the question with accepting the act of letting 25 strangers into your house given that some lunacy happened.
You quickly edited this post after you realised how retarded a statement that is. No one in their right mind would let a gross number of people in their house given that it's a house with rules and order that 25 strangers probably don't understand. Just admit you made a shit metaphor in relation to letting in refugees.
It's very rational to be unwary of mass immigration. Just ask a Native American.
Originally posted by Robtard
HYG again, quoting where your question was already answered:This of course won't stop your lunatic games.
Saying "your country" or "my country" is a figure of speech, it doesn't imply actual ownership, how can you not realize that.
I did what now? Are you drunk again or something?
"Unwary" you say? I assume you mean "wary" and yes, on the surface I agree, but being wary isn't the same as being a ranting bigot.
Anyhow, just hope you realize that someone saying "my country" doesn't imply actual ownership. Hope you at least take that with you.
Originally posted by It's xyz!
"in your house" is the same as "in your country"Do you think it's a good idea to let 25 random strangers in your house?
If "in your house" is the same as "in your country" then your question is completely out of perspective.
Let's take Germany which let in about 1 million asylum seekers. Germany has 80 million people. Assuming that your house has four people in it the appropriate question to Robtard would be:
"Would you accept 0.05 strangers into your house?"
Originally posted by Bardock42
If "in your house" is the same as "in your country" then your question is completely out of perspective.Let's take Germany which let in about 1 million asylum seekers. Germany has 80 million people. Assuming that your house has four people in it the appropriate question to Robtard would be:
"Would you accept 0.05 strangers into your house?"
Originally posted by Bardock42The 25 figure was what Robtard used here.
If "in your house" is the same as "in your country" then your question is completely out of perspective.Let's take Germany which let in about 1 million asylum seekers. Germany has 80 million people. Assuming that your house has four people in it the appropriate question to Robtard would be:
"Would you accept 0.05 strangers into your house?"
Originally posted by Robtard
Looking at the world-wide number of immigrants, even whittling it down to "asylum seekers from Muslim countries" specifically, no, the rape to immigration numbers are not "statistically insane".This is one incident in Japan. It's like inviting twenty-five random strangers into your house and two happen to turn out to be insane criminals and you blanket claim "two in twenty-five random strangers are criminally insane!", when really, you could repeat that same test a hundred more times and not have a single insane criminal.
That's why I used 25 and asked if its a good idea to let 25 random strangers in your house.
Try to pay attention instead of fighting Robtards battles for him.
The figures are pretty irrelevant in my point, but since you want to fixate on them, I'll play along.
Considering 0.05 strangers is not a person, let's assume it's a person who lives in your 4 bedroom house for 1/20th of a lifetime. Or 4 years.
Do you think it's a good idea to let a stranger in your 4 bedroom house for 4 years?
Originally posted by It's xyz!
The 25 figure was what Robtard used here.That's why I used 25 and asked if its a good idea to let 25 random strangers in your house.
Try to pay attention instead of fighting Robtards battles for him.
The figures are pretty irrelevant in my point, but since you want to fixate on them, I'll play along.
Considering 0.05 strangers is not a person, let's assume it's a person who lives in your 4 bedroom house for 1/20th of a lifetime. Or 4 years.
Do you think it's a good idea to let a stranger in your 4 bedroom house for 4 years?
Robards used the 25 number as a point about false statistical extrapolation. You then took it and used it as a comparison to migration as a whole, hence why you introduced the completely insane number that's more than an order of magnitude (in fact almost two orders of magnitude) inaccurate.
I don't see why we should extend your metaphor and make it 20 times worse than it should be just because you would like the facts to be different. If we go by the house comparison then it is 0.05 strangers we talk about, which perfectly shows why you are so wrong about literally everything you say.
If we are going to continue the metaphor perhaps it should be about a community of 80 people, perhaps 30 houses. And the questionnaire should you house one stranger that's being threatened in a.different community for religious reasons, and that stranger has searched you out and asked you for help at great cost to them. And the stranger is willing to contribute to your community, build his own house in time, pay taxes, and be a good neighbor...and you have really good experiences with strangers in the past who did just that and were an overall asset to your community...should you do it then? That's a more accurate question in the frame of what we are talking about
Originally posted by Bardock42Bardock, I understand why Robtard made the comparison, so I simply asked a question regarding letting strangers into one's home.
Robards used the 25 number as a point about false statistical extrapolation. You then took it and used it as a comparison to migration as a whole, hence why you introduced the completely insane number that's more than an order of magnitude (in fact almost two orders of magnitude) inaccurate.I don't see why we should extend your metaphor and make it 20 times worse than it should be just because you would like the facts to be different. If we go by the house comparison then it is 0.05 strangers we talk about, which perfectly shows why you are so wrong about literally everything you say.
If we are going to continue the metaphor perhaps it should be about a community of 80 people, perhaps 30 houses. And the questionnaire should you house one stranger that's being threatened in a.different community for religious reasons, and that stranger has searched you out and asked you for help at great cost to them. And the stranger is willing to contribute to your community, build his own house in time, pay taxes, and be a good neighbor...and you have really good experiences with strangers in the past who did just that and were an overall asset to your community...should you do it then? That's a more accurate question in the frame of what we are talking about
Again, the numbers are irrelevant, it's the principle of letting strangers into one's home.
That's not an accurate question at all. Do you trust numerous refugees in uncontrolled immigration to to contribute your community, build his own house in time, pay taxes, be a good neighbor...and Germany has good experience with refugees in the past and were an overall asset to your country?
Because cologne would probably think differently...
I don't care if it's a small minority, it's uncontrolled immigration and problems like this happen. That's why immigration laws to assure all the things you've stated are in place. There are many other reasons to control immigration, but you seem to think numbers are more important than the principles of letting people into your own house.
There are a few young refugees who would probably love to be in your flat, and they're seeking religious persecution and racist prejudice. Would you let them in your house?
Originally posted by SurturThank you Surtur. It's about time someone answered me.
I think the sane answer is I wouldn't take any strangers in my house because they are strangers and you don't know what the f*ck they are capable of.
I would probably make friends with those people and build a relationship of trust before I invite guests round. Common interests, cleanliness, etiquette, the basic stuff.
I certainly wouldn't let strangers live on my couch because somebody else wants to kill them. Might attract that killer to my house, you know? Also a young man tends to get horny. Certainly don't want him raping my family or vandalising things I'm proud of in my house.
I don't know why Bardock is avoiding this question...
I think it's pretty clear why I don't answer thus question directly, because it is, like I have shown, irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Even if it was not it is too vague to answer anyways, we'd have to discuss more of the circumstances, and the more we discuss them the more we get away from it being a good analogy of the migration situation.
What circumstances would make you want a stranger in your home? I just don't get it. If there is some kind of natural disaster happening right outside your door and a stranger is banging on it in order to be let in and saved...I mean is that what you are talking about?
I don't see why you'd want to gamble with your life or possibly with the life of others that live with you.
Plus I'd imagine there are plenty of natural German citizens who are on hard times and could use a place to stay. You guys have homeless people right?
Most of the time when you hear about people allowing complete strangers into their home it is because they desperately need to do so because they need money.
Originally posted by Surtur
What circumstances would make you want a stranger in your home? I just don't get it. If there is some kind of natural disaster happening right outside your door and a stranger is banging on it in order to be let in and saved...I mean is that what you are talking about?I don't see why you'd want to gamble with your life or possibly with the life of others that live with you.
Plus I'd imagine there are plenty of natural German citizens who are on hard times and could use a place to stay. You guys have homeless people right?
Most of the time when you hear about people allowing complete strangers into their home it is because they desperately need to do so because they need money.
Let's take your natural disaster example, would you do it then?