Originally posted by SlayThat's not what he said at all.
You're just proving my point here. How does ''Letting 25 lunatics escaping an asylum into your house'' relate to offering sanctuary to refugees fleeing a war-torn country? Your whole analogy is based on the premise that Muslim refugees are on par with ''lunatics who escaped an asylum''. Like I said, it's loaded with bias. Of course no-one here would allow 25 lunatics into their house. It's just that that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread. That, is why it's apparent that you're not here to have an actual discussion. You just want to assert your hatred of Muslims. THAT, is what's shameful.
He said escaping lunacy. Ie why they left their country in the first place. Xyzeddy never attacked the character of the strangers, only said that they are strangers and strangers are strange and untrustworthy unless they're giving consensual strange.
Everyone is just dancing around his question that Rob made up the scenario for and then acting like they're just trying to avoid eye contact because this is the first time seeing each other since they experimented with homosexual penis mouth syndrome. It became a bigger deal than it needs to be.
And now you're assuming that everything he's saying is loaded with bias because he's been proven to be an unrepenting racist and thus everything he says must have ulterior motives.
Let me answer Rob's scenerio by not doing a little jig to it:
No I wouldn't let 25 strangers escaping lunacy into my house because they're no telling what they went through and what would be carried over, but that's not all. No I wouldn't let 25 strangers into my house because I don't know what they're capable of. Would they stab me? Would they play with my weiner? Would they dangle toe nails in my mouth while I'm sleeping? I don't know what they're capable of. It's not built on trust. And even in Rob's scenerio 2 of them turned out to be boy hungry pedophile rapists. How can you tell who has a hankering for boys? You can't. And unlike usual RSOs, refugees don't need you to sign a paper.
And this is the part you guys danced around because at this stage you think it applies to a broader area like a country. "Well I can't answer that directly because then my point is defeated." But it doesn't because it's a terrible example. Sure the same logic might apply in some cases, but it isn't across the board applicable. I wouldn't stick a banana in my arsehole but I wouldn't be opposed to others bananing their butts.
Originally posted by One Big Mob
"Well I can't answer that directly because then my point is defeated." But it doesn't because it's a terrible example.
Actually, that is exactly what I said in the post you were addressing. Xyz wants people to answer it because he thinks it will defeat their point, but it's actually a terrible example so there's no point in anyone answering it. This is why the use of the word 'defeatist' is not applicable. Glad we cleared that all up.
Again, pretending that Robtards scenario is the same as what xyz's asking is incorrect. Robtards point was not about feasibility of inviting strangers, it was about the fallacy of making rules out of single anecdotes.
Additionally I did give an answer to xyz's question I.e. I can't give a yes or no with this limited amount of information, what are the actual circumstances? I get that this answer doesn't satisfy xyz who wants to hear "no" so he can say "aha, so you admit immigration is bad", but it is an answer regardless
What about this question: you are a musician having a concert. You have enough room for 1,000 fans, and you sell out immediately. However, before your concert you are told by your security that a very small percentage of the people who bought tickets for your concert are violent criminals, but that they don't know exactly which ones are the criminals. Do you still go through with your concert?
Originally posted by Bardock42The only difference is that Rob wanted to say the next hundred times they could have not been any criminals. Xyz just asked straight out if he thinks it's a good idea. Rob wanted to say that they could be good people even if a few were spoiled. Xyz said it's a bad idea either way. Then a whole lot of dancing, like right now. The difference in intentions does not change the basic part of the example.
Again, pretending that Robtards scenario is the same as what xyz's asking is incorrect. Robtards point was not about feasibility of inviting strangers, it was about the fallacy of making rules out of single anecdotes.Additionally I did give an answer to xyz's question I.e. I can't give a yes or no with this limited amount of information, what are the actual circumstances? I get that this answer doesn't satisfy xyz who wants to hear "no" so he can say "aha, so you admit immigration is bad", but it is an answer regardless
It is as simple as yes and no though. Not to mention there's an easy example that this thing is based off of; Refugees.
If 25 refugees came to your door who needed refuge, would you allow them to stay?
Originally posted by SlayHence my confusion with all the awkward shuffling around it. Everyone is trying to go around the question like they're afraid of it. Like if they answer yes they can't expand afterwards. Yes it plays into xyz, but it doesn't mean he's correct or incorrect. A simple avoidance looks far worse than just answering him straight up and letting the topic flow from there.
Actually, that is exactly what I said in the post you were addressing. Xyz wants people to answer it because he thinks it will defeat their point, but it's actually a terrible example so there's no point in anyone answering it. This is why the use of the word 'defeatist' is not applicable. Glad we cleared that all up.
I don't really care about the question or the context surrounding it since really, but it's hilarious the type of "fear" this example being turned around has caused.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, pretending that Robtards scenario is the same as what xyz's asking is incorrect. Robtards point was not about feasibility of inviting strangers, it was about the fallacy of making rules out of single anecdotes.Additionally I did give an answer to xyz's question I.e. I can't give a yes or no with this limited amount of information, what are the actual circumstances? I get that this answer doesn't satisfy xyz who wants to hear "no" so he can say "aha, so you admit immigration is bad", but it is an answer regardless
We have a winner
Originally posted by One Big Mob
The only difference is that Rob wanted to say the next hundred times they could have not been any criminals. Xyz just asked straight out if he thinks it's a good idea. Rob wanted to say that they could be good people even if a few were spoiled. Xyz said it's a bad idea either way. Then a whole lot of dancing, like right now. The difference in intentions does not change the basic part of the example.It is as simple as yes and no though. Not to mention there's an easy example that this thing is based off of; Refugees.
If 25 refugees came to your door who needed refuge, would you allow them to stay?.
It is a question that can be answered with a simple yes or no...like this question "Have you stopped beating your wife?"... So... Have you One Big Mob? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Additionally you are adding stuff to the question, so these strangers are now refugees, and they do definitely need refuge? They also do ask it of me personally. Well, we are getting closer to the circumstances. I'd still need to know more, to make a final decision, but I'm glad you also see that it was too simplistic, which is obviously why you added further details in your asking if it.
Originally posted by Bardock42here is my scenario.
Again, pretending that Robtards scenario is the same as what xyz's asking is incorrect. Robtards point was not about feasibility of inviting strangers, it was about the fallacy of making rules out of single anecdotes.Additionally I did give an answer to xyz's question I.e. I can't give a yes or no with this limited amount of information, what are the actual circumstances? I get that this answer doesn't satisfy xyz who wants to hear "no" so he can say "aha, so you admit immigration is bad", but it is an answer regardless
You are the mayor of a town in the Middle Ages. Let's call it, mercium. Your town is very economical and very nice, some of these people occasionally break the law, but in general, it's quite the nice place.
You hear that people from over the field, the river, the forest, the sea and 7 or 8 different towns are shooting each other in a dessert. Well call this town, Asod. Someone sold them crossbows, or something. Now a lot of these people have a very different culture to Mercium. Different rules of marriage, trade and are also, kinda suppressed and dreamed they lived in mercium because they've heard nice things about it.
The people of mercium like living there too, and naturally, don't want a lot of migrants with a different culture settling in free houses and free education, things mercium takes pride in. They also hear that Asod has a bad leader who oppresses his people. There's like, 3 or 4 different armies shooting each other and a lot of chaos in the town of Asod.
Lots of towns between Asod and Mercium are reluctant to let these men in their towns because of the different culture of Asodians, their upset, their desperation to find a better life. You are the mayor of Mercium and wish to negotiate with these uneducated prejudice towns, and even your friend from nearby Fraymantown thinks it could work.
Turns out, a lot of men came into your town. Lofvenia is a bit north over the river, they got men too. As leader of Mercia, you realise that your friends don't like what you have done to your town or your neighbors, in fact, there are cases of rape and terrorism in your town and your friends' towns.
As leader of mercium, do you think it's a good idea to keep an open border policy or not?
Originally posted by It's xyz!
here is my scenario.You are the mayor of a town in the Middle Ages. Let's call it, mercium. Your town is very economical and very nice, some of these people occasionally break the law, but in general, it's quite the nice place.
You hear that people from over the field, the river, the forest, the sea and 7 or 8 different towns are shooting each other in a dessert. Well call this town, Asod. Someone sold them crossbows, or something. Now a lot of these people have a very different culture to Mercium. Different rules of marriage, trade and are also, kinda suppressed and dreamed they lived in mercium because they've heard nice things about it.
The people of mercium like living there too, and naturally, don't want a lot of migrants with a different culture settling in free houses and free education, things mercium takes pride in. They also hear that Asod has a bad leader who oppresses his people. There's like, 3 or 4 different armies shooting each other and a lot of chaos in the town of Asod.
Lots of towns between Asod and Mercium are reluctant to let these men in their towns because of the different culture of Asodians, their upset, their desperation to find a better life. You are the mayor of Mercium and wish to negotiate with these uneducated prejudice towns, and even your friend from nearby Fraymantown thinks it could work.
Turns out, a lot of men came into your town. Lofvenia is a bit north over the river, they got men too. As leader of Mercia, you realise that your friends don't like what you have done to your town or your neighbors, in fact, there are cases of rape and terrorism in your town and your friends' towns.
As leader of mercium, do you think it's a good idea to keep an open border policy or not?
Do these people coming to Mercium generally adopt the important tenants of our culture? How many of the people living in Mercium are for letting them in, how many against? Is your proposed open border policy the only choice I have besides closing, or could I implement a system that checks these potential immigrants and rejects them if they don't fit certain criteria? How many cases of rapes and terrorism are there? Is criminality higher among immigrants than my citizens? How many of the immigrants are law abiding? How many look for jobs and contribute to Mercium?
Originally posted by Bardock42How are you going to answer a post where I accuse you of dancing around with a massive amount of dancing around?
It is a question that can be answered with a simple yes or no...like this question "Have you stopped beating your wife?"... So... Have you One Big Mob? A simple yes or no will suffice.Additionally you are adding stuff to the question, so these strangers are now refugees, and they do definitely need refuge? They also do ask it of me personally. Well, we are getting closer to the circumstances. I'd still need to know more, to make a final decision, but I'm glad you also see that it was too simplistic, which is obviously why you added further details in your asking if it.
I'm not adding anything, I'm saying that simply using the example that this thread is based off of would be an easy way to do this without playing stupid. You need an example and apparently even the refugee crisis isn't enough to stop you from utterly refusing to answer. It has nothing to do with me, it's you needing catering.
But I see Xyz now has a scenerio, so my questions are pointless.
Originally posted by Bardock42😂
Do these people coming to Mercium generally adopt the important tenants of our culture? How many of the people living in Mercium are for letting them in, how many against? Is your proposed open border policy the only choice I have besides closing, or could I implement a system that checks these potential immigrants and rejects them if they don't fit certain criteria? How many cases of rapes and terrorism are there? Is criminality higher among immigrants than my citizens? How many of the immigrants are law abiding? How many look for jobs and contribute to Mercium?
Originally posted by Bardock42Considering they come from Asod, a place with different marriage laws and trade and are also oppressed and are fleeing a 4 sided war, I would say they don't generally adopt to the culture of Mercium. In cameronia, it usually takes a few generations before full integration, as, is the case in Obamania. These places have stricter regulations against migration and have historically been regarded as quite prejudice towards newcomers. As for the people of Mercium, it's your home. How many people in Mercium do you think are kind towards newcomers, and specifically, criminal newcomers? Focusing on the criminal acts here of newcomers who took advantage of an open border policy.
Do these people coming to Mercium generally adopt the important tenants of our culture? How many of the people living in Mercium are for letting them in, how many against? Is your proposed open border policy the only choice I have besides closing, or could I implement a system that checks these potential immigrants and rejects them if they don't fit certain criteria? How many cases of rapes and terrorism are there? Is criminality higher among immigrants than my citizens? How many of the immigrants are law abiding? How many look for jobs and contribute to Mercium?
It's actually not all newcomers from Asod, not all of them are rapists or terrorists. It's a small percentage. Generally speaking, it was quite a big shock and the acts of terrorism and rape have increased. One major rape case in Mercia was committed from citizens from Asod, the acts of terrorism were committed by people associated with one of the armies in Asod. This happened in the neighbouring towns of Mercia, hollandaise and michely.
Some of the non violent Asodians are signing up for free education, some are living in castles. They're probably looking for work, but they aren't good at mercunese. They also don't understand Mercian culture compared to the average Mercian who has been in Mercium for generations.
You could implement an immigration policy that says they shouldn't be allowed in if they don't fit a certain criteria. That would be sensible immigration. Unfortunately, you opened up the borders and you have one case of mass rape and two cases of terrorism. Would you implement an immigration policy that is stricter than your previous policy of Schengen and movement of labour?
Originally posted by One Big Mob
Hence my confusion with all the awkward shuffling around it. Everyone is trying to go around the question like they're afraid of it. Like if they answer yes they can't expand afterwards. Yes it plays into xyz, but it doesn't mean he's correct or incorrect. A simple avoidance looks far worse than just answering him straight up and letting the topic flow from there.I don't really care about the question or the context surrounding it since really, but it's hilarious the type of "fear" this example being turned around has caused.