Immigrants are a scapegoat for complex socioeconomic issues and have rarely, if ever, been the cause of any significant negative effective on a nation. Overemphasis on curbing immigration is reactionary behavior to government dysfunction and economic dissatisfaction.
>>84247205thats nice but in europe our countries are our ancestral ethnic homelands and we dont want to become hated minorities in them. but im sure there are other interesting problems in modern societies that we could adress after all the foreigners went home
>>84247205Being pro-immigration isn't an unpopular opinion; it is a position that is entirely characteristic of the mainstream view of what it is acceptable to think.And many people do not share the view that a nation is something defined by the codetermination of state and territory (i.e. a nation in the Westphalian sense). For us, a nation is a People with a shared ancestry, culture, and destiny, and the state should form an organic unity with said People. So when you say that immigration does not negatively affect a nation, that is patently wrong. Immigration causes the culture of our homelands to change, and with it the vitalism of our People wanes. Take the case of Canada as an example. Canada has historically been a specifically Anglo-Celtic nation primarily for those with ancestry in the British islands, and later on secondarily for some other Europeans. But today Canada is a nation flooded with black and brown skinned invaders, and most old stock Canadians whose families have been here more or less since the beginning probably haven't even heard of the term "Anglo-Celtic." Which is to say they haven't even heard the name of their own ethnic group. Canadian national identity and values today are globohomo multiculturalism and interracial cuckoldry.Canadian "post-nationalism" is not beyond nationalism, but rather is for the nationalism of the ethnic other rather than of the self. But when Canada is a historically Anglo-Celtic nation and despite this there is virtually no public recognition of this fact (doing so would even be a cause for political scandal), why should we care about immigrants?Go back where you came from. You will not replace us.
>>84247378(1/2)Hate to break it to you sweetie but peoples and culture changes constantly. It only remaind static in incredibly isolated areas. Immigration is a natural process within history, and have been done primarily for survival (our strongest objective). Its absolutely hilarious that you took Canada as an example and said>Canada has historically been a specifically Anglo-Celtic nation primarily for those with ancestry in the British islands, and later on secondarily for some other Europeans.Which is flat out wrong. They were immigrants who came to the country only a couple hundred years ago. Matter of fact they were incredibly invasive and destructive immigrants, as they stood behind alot of enviormental degradation which has harmed the nature in north America. A better example of this can be found in the US, specifically appalachia. Not only did these destructive European immigrants harm the nature, they harmed and exploited the native people to a great extent. Using their knowledge before driving them away from their homes, causing mass death. Killing the animals that kept them alive, simply to starve them to death. If you're going to talk about immigration, at least get your facts straight. You proved OPs point; people, such as yourself, only mind immigration as a reaction to what negatively impacts YOU (due to economic struggle) and in their mind exists this idea that they rightfully own the land they live in, forgetting the fact that they themselves were once the immigrants (this is not always the case however). Who likely massacred and starved out the real native population.
>>84247895 >>84247378(2/2)>Go back where you came from. You will not replace usYou seem like youre canadian, of euro decent. You are an immigrant. Yes, your family has lived here for maybe 6-10 generations, but you are an immigrant. Your body is technically speaking not even designed to live in canada. Your ancestors are those same destructive and invasive immigrants who replaced the true native population. Had the world lived by the rules you suggested, you wouldn't BE canadian. Your family would most likely have died from starvation due to the potato blight, or they would have died due to poverty. You would likely not have existed at all. You should thank your ancestors for migrating, the same way immigrants should be happy they migrated.
>>84247205>and have rarely, if ever, been the cause of any significant negative effective on a nation...
>>84247895>>84247914How is this a counterargument? You just affirmed that immigration is harmful.
>>84247205>unpopular opinion>is the top-down establishment squid ink sprayed out to try to deflect blame away from where it belongsKill yourselfWhat did he mean by this?
>>84247994No, thats not the point of the post. As i said, immigration primarily happens due to survival. Destructive immigration happens when said immigrants practice immorality (in the form of explotation and heedlessness). But morality cant simply be blamed on skin color or ethnicity. Of the European immigrants there must have been people who condemned the practices of their fellow clansmenn. Likewise, of modern immigrants there are those who condemn the practices of their fellow clansmen. Morality is an individual matter, even though we are shaped by our communities, there is always the possibility of change in beliefs. It is to be noted that the damage done by the European immigrants is far, far greater than that of contemporary immigrants. (Almost causing bison to be extinct simply to starve off native americans is absolutely crazy and heartbreaking)Immigration is like i said, natural. The crux of the matter isnt immigration, it is immorality. Now I really dont give two dimes about modern economics as I am vehemently against capitalism and environmental degradation, but I care alot for common decency and humanity.
>>84247205Most immigrants, whether mexican Italian Indian, have 0 appreciation for the opportunities they're given here and segregate themselves speaking their own language first chance they get. Why should I feel sorry for foreigners when they would have no problem blowing my head off first chance they get?>blackbot
>>84248101BTW I'm not bowing down to white Americans or saying that america is perfect, just pointing out the hypocrisy of many immigrants in America
>>84248083Read "On Genetic Interests" by Frank Salter, and then commit suicide for shitting up this board and sliding a better thread off the catalog by posting your bourgeoise trust funder / jewish retardation
>>84248083>>84247914>>84247895Bodied that freak trvkelear holocausted this whole thread, good read. Emphasis on the destruction of nature especially euros are the worst in regards to this, it's unreal how they try and shift blame of the damage they dealt onto other groups.
>>84248179>"euros are the worst at this">apocalyptic poison rivers in china and especially india where this user is from
>>84248179In defense of euros, it's just the men that are still destructive and have that primal urge in them. Most white women are the complete opposite and would rather see their family killed than deport a bad Muslim man
>>84247205You copypasted this from AI
>>84247205Immigration is incorrect regardless of what's going on with the economy.The economy is fucked up because of overpopulation, importing more certainly won't help that.
>>84248083>Immigration is harmful, but it is also naturalOkay? This is a complete non sequitur. The argument was whether "Immigrants [...] have rarely, if ever, been the cause of any significant negative effective on a nation." You conceded that they have, and are currently chasing after your own tail having an argument about whether immigration is natural or not. What does it matter? That is not the topic of the discussion.I sincerely hope you are being deliberately dishonest in hopes of derailing the discussion, because if you genuinely believed that your argument was coherent you are a bloviating imbecile. Also:>Ted Kaczynski 2016 wants their polemic back
>>84248301If immigration is harmful then everyone would (and should) have stayed in africa thousands of years ago. Immigration is natural. I genuenly dont need to say more on that. People are too miserable and jaded by modernity to be able to appreciate the cycle of life i suppose.
>>84247895>Hate to break it to you sweetie but peoples and culture changes constantly.Just because things change doesn't mean all change is good and should be embraced.Point in case, your beloved immigrants rushing to the first world so they can have air conditioning when the weather changes to summer because they can't do things like that by themselves.If you believe that all change is good and we should just lie down and embrace it, then prove it: The next time you're hungry, don't eat anything. Just embrace the change in state and don't do anything to stop it. If you eat any meals from now until you die, you are a hypocrite. -Or worse, a leftist.Every third worlder craves the first world lifestyle, no matter how many buffalo have to die for it. When it comes to atrocities, the only thing that stops a third worlder is his inability, not his willingness. They tend to do worse.
>>84248377When people reference the literacy crisis, it is important to note that many so-called illiterates are perfectly capable of speaking English, and even stringing together sentences that seem to adhere to all the necessary conventions but have no real meaning. Your daft comment is the perfect example>If immigration is harmful then everyone would (and should) have stayed in africa thousands of years ago.If being eaten is harmful, then the cat should not eat the bird.Do you see now how STUPID your comment is?In the case of immigration there are beneficiaries and casualties. The immigrating party benefits, otherwise they would not immigrate in the first place. The party who is burdened by immigrants suffers, whether in the form of colonization, environmental destruction, or paying some form of welfare to a smelly Algerian mud creature.
>>84248501NTA but remember to deconstruct the terms he uses when he tries to say something like>Well, immigration can increase GDP and...In what way and for whom? When someone critiques immigration, they do not mean there is a binary between a single, unified, cohesive party of the Nation, and a single, unified, cohesive, party of "immigrants," in which the immigrant strictly and always takes a positive profit and the "Nation" strictly always loses. Within the "Nation" are many groups, profiteers, smugglers, academics, billionaires, politicians, tradesmen, etc., with their own interests; an increase in per capita GDP means nothing from the perspective of a component of that society which has been negatively affected socioculturally by migration.Do not allow anons to conflate words and terms in order to straw man.
>grooming gangs>christmas killingsbut it's true the government is incompetent
>>84247205we dont want them gone because of the economy we want them gone because they cant stop raping everything
>>84248501>>84248400Yall should go on a hike or something. Let your lungs breathe in fresh air instead of carcinogenic polluted air. It does wonders for the body and mind. Praying you guys stop mentaly enslaving yourself to a system that cares more about a dollar than the future of our earth and the wellbeing of people.
>>84248581This is called "not an argument," and it's best not to try debating if this is how you have to end it.
I really don't care about the cultural shifts a nation goes through due to immigration, and its well studied that immigration is good for the economy, so all of your complains fall on deaf ears. the idea that they're dirty, stupid, and a net negative is just racist propaganda you all constructed to feel superior and entitled to stolen land. Now you can stop brainwashing yourself with your twitter feed or you can live side by side with PEOPLE who just happen to look a little different from you.
>>84248581>>84248581Even your non-argument fails. The outdoor air is heavily polluted because of the number of people polluting and importing more people makes it worse and not better.
>>84248556Im not planning to continue. I have said enough I believe, and this website isnt very fond of people who oppose them. Nor do they really care about the nuances within the beneficiaries and the marginalised. Immigration politics for them is the same as identity politics for libs and leftists. Its sensitive for them. Either they come to the conclusion that diversity, change, life and death is what our earth is made for, or they die never knowing the beautiful juxtaposition of the world we call home.
>>84248626Cross cultural differences in behavior are also well known and studied. It is not about an aesthetic difference. Even if the behaviors were completely innocuous, it is no less valid to dislike having new neighbors who celebrate completely different holidays, eat completely different food, speak a differeny language etc., than to prefer to keep it the way it was. To assert that one MUST import different people simply because... because... "economy" or "diversity," is a plain moral imperative but it is up to the individual's own desires what they ultimately desire. I would like to live in a neighborhood of people who share my culture, my values, beliefs, history, language, etc.; that this is or is not wrong is a moral issue for you.>>84248678Actually you have received very rational arguments devoid of emotionality, and only you, specifically you, have resorted to moral pleas and imperatives.You can keep going if you want. Being reasonable does not mean "agreeing with you automatically," and anons here have robust views on immigration.
>>84247205You're oversimplifying what is obviously artificially being constructed into first world countries
>>84248581"CAPITALISM, therefore you must be overrun by niggers. This makes sense in my 92 IQ discord tranny mind."
Bringing millions of retarded amoral third-worlders into your country is obviously going to harm it.
>>84248822Not him, but I like replies like those. Substitute it with two random terms like so:>BAD THING, therefore THIS, okay? Or you're stupid and evil and ignorant.So,>HOUSE BURNED DOWN, therefore EAT APPLES, okay? Or you're stupid and evil and ignorant.>GUY HARRASSING YOU, therefore DON'T WORRY ABOUT ANNOYING NEIGHBOR, okay? Or you're stupid and evil and ignorant.>BOSS SCAMMING YOU, therefore LET SHRUBBERY BE TRIMMED, okay? Or you're stupid and evil and ignorant.>YOUR PHONE STOLEN, therefore ACCEPT CHINESE FOOD, okay? Or you're stupid and evil and ignorant.>CAPITALISM, therefore ACCEPT IMMIGRANTS, okay? Or you're stupid and evil and ignorant.It says a lot about the mind of the leftist who says it, so it's interesting at least from a psychological perspective.
>>84247205You have to go back Enrique.
>>84247974Op still hasn't replied to this post btw, scared little bitch
>>84247205That's nice but immigrating to a country of a different race would be seen as invasion for 99% of history. Immigration can only work if they integrate and adopt the culture and values and don't have seething resentment for the natives.
>>84248906Yes, there's plenty of evidence of it being a bad thing, not only on a material basis but also simply on a sociocultural one. OP had to create a false binary>You MUST support all billionaires or you MUST accept unlimited immigrationAs if a political position cannot encompass both, either, or neither, because there's no other argument to be had. He admitted he was a tourist to "this website" so, there's that. At least OP made an attempt.
>>84248704That's a very wordy way of saying that immigrants give you the ick, but it's more than just that. You HATE them for being different. I might agree with some of your points yes it can be a little daunting being around cultures that you're not used to but this point is also a lie to bluster your argument. Why? because immigrants assimilate to the cultures they migrated to. But even if they do assimilate you have racist notions that they're somehow different than you, and so you would never accept it regardless. Which makes you really bad imo, you're using all this language to sell this idea that immigration is bad, when all it boils down to is just racism.
>>84247205>Immigrants are a scapegoat for complex socioeconomic issues and have rarely, if ever, been the cause of any significant negative effective on a nation.Are you retarded? So all thr extra rape thst happens in Sweden and other places is just made up huh?
I don't think the west deserves western values if whites as individuals don't uphold them and act like shithead immigrants
>>84248987I wonder what your real political view is on this topic because you're clearly rage baiting so I don't think you're a liberal but maybe you're also a thirdie
>>84248995They'll just cope and deflect by saying that rarely a Swede might do the same crime even though it was virtually an urban myth before open borders.
>>84247205In 2016 when Trump said this.https://youtube.com/shorts/-2aKoPwIAz4?si=CCJkv0FxKNv_qzS0I couldn't find a single person to admit this was a racist remark, except 1 guy on Reddit. Out of morbid curiosity, I started to talk to him. It turns out he was a white supremacist, and he believed that Trump was going to make America white again. The race he thought Trump would go after was black people. One of the things I keep thinking about was when ask how he expected to get rid of black people in America, it's not like he can make a law that says no black people. He replied," We can make laws to make it so bad here that they would want to leave."I feel this is what is happening now in America. I also think ICE is supposed to be Trump's army. Maybe not all of them know it yet, but I figure if Trump gets impeached or loses the next election. They will show their face. We are also clearly killing and worse in these detention centers.
>>84248995Sweden has high rape reporting rate because of how they classify what constitutes a rape, it's like the inverse of Japan where they claim they don't have any rape but it's because many forms of sexual assault are decriminalised There are countries with a much higher immigrant population than Sweden and a much lower rate of sexual assault like Germany for example which this chart would tell you is a safe country for women.
>>84248987>You HATE them for being different.No, in the same sense that I might not hate a brother or a sister I do not want to live with, I can also not hate a foreign person for not wanting to live with them. Ought I be forced to let people live in my home arbitrarily, simply because of some moral imperative that... what exactly? This can simply be extended to the domain of the "nation"; you may believe that "an immigrant" "somewhere" in the "nation" doesn't necessarily affect me (true), the fact remains that I am not obligated except by your moral dogma to vote in accordance with immigration. Even if the term was "ick," let us say, there is no basis by which this is less rational than voting for a change in the color or shape of the American flag. It doesn't affect me, does it? It is socially constructed, and those who dislike it can simply ignore it. Yet there is no rational reason to or not to vote to change the flag, and if such a proposition existed that the flag be changed, I cannot be called "really bad" simply for having a difference in taste.So if I accept your premise entirely and do not contest it in any way, all you have done is say:>You're really bad and evil and hateful because you want something different!Okay? Now please, please, please point to the objective moral truth which says I ought not vote according to my simple tastes and "icks." Please. This is to say nothing of the idea of assimilation; this is simply false. While immigrant groups change to more closely match the culture of the host, there is still a gap in cultural practices, behaviors, and propensities, and this acknowledged difference in culture is the basis of the belief that diversity is some sort of economic, social, or cultural strength. For if it was true immigrants became identical, diversity would disappear as soon as it materializes.But yes, you have said I'm "really bad" in "your opinion," quite an argument.
>>84249071>Not wanting to live with themThis is just like the "I don't want trans in my face " line conservatives say. You don't actually live with them. You don't want them in your country. Immigrants, legal and illegal, probably do more to help your country than you do. Also, no one gives a shit about the flag.
>>84249125>This is just like the "I don't want trans in my face " line conservatives say. You don't actually live with them. You don't want them in your country. Immigrants, legal and illegal, probably do more to help your country than you do. Also, no one gives a shit about the flag.You are just giving more moral imperatives that I ought not care about something that doesn't affect me. This is a simple moral dogma. I care about, for instance, female genital mutilation despite it having no conceivable bearing on my life in any way. Ought I not, because it doesn't affect me? Or if you say I ought to care because women are being harmed, then why? Why ought I care about something that does not affect me?Can you say anything other than>I DEMAND you support what I support!!! If you don't then you're stupid mean evil and my tummy hurts!!!or do you need help?
>>84249071I feel like you're very divorced from the reality of living in third world countries. I think it is morally reprehensible for you to deny these people entry because they seek better opportunities in a nation (not inside your home). Especially when they have gone through the legal process to enter these countries we're speaking about. It's not a matter of subjectivity and it makes you look very alien when you compare it simply changing the color of the flag. We've already established that a nation is not your house, and so there's going to be people with different opinions than yourself, the idea that you are unified because of race is a completely retarded notion that you're appealing to. Also if the nation is benefiting from immigration, and you just don't want them because it's just your opinion that you don't like brown people then yea you're ruining it for everyone else that benefits from immigration. That's what being a dick is called. Its like you've studied debate to be a professional asshole.
>>84249125That's funny because the people who overwhelmingly vote for immigrants don't live near them and would never house them or send their kids to school with them.
>>84249125They don't, though, they are a net negative and in conjunction with social engineering policies that exist to benefit them at the expense of those like me are even worse in that regard. Everything has gotten worse with mass immigration and globalization policies. National debt, living standards, crime, you name it. The shit cherry on top is the affirmative action/DEI/etc. which actually discriminates against me in my own country. Any white man not born into wealth and connections under the age of 50 in the current year has been fucked by this in every country with mass immigration.
>>84249157It's morally reprehensible for you to force them on us and deprive us of opportunity in our own countries for the benefit of genetic outsiders. We are not benefiting from them as a whole and every quantifiable metric is worse as a result of the undemocratic open borders policy. Resources, land, carry capacity etc. are limited goods. We don't owe them better lives, and certainly not at the expense of our own. You clearly believe in and support racially discriminatory (against whites) policies like every other faggot who supports open borders. When it's pointed out that none of this is beneficial, none of it's "good 4 the economy lulz" etc. all you people do is then turn around and say "actually, it's a punishment against you and that's a good thing." You should kill yourself.
>>84249148But you don't really care about female genital mutilation. I bet real money that if I were to look over your life for the last 10 years. The only thing you've done is post about it on websites like this and Reddit. You're not out in the world advocating it to stop.You also know your logic is a double-edged sword. You being an incel doesn't really impact me in any way. According to you, I should care because one day you might randomly shoot a bunch of people.>I demandIt's funny you can't even have this conversation without making stuff up. I didn't demand anything. >>84249163Except 20% of the population in my town is immigrants. Probably more if you broke down people who were black.
>>84249157>It's not a matter of subjectivityIt quite literally is. What is the objective moral truth that says I must support people of X group? It is no different than a matter of apples and oranges to me.>the idea that you are unified because of race is a completely retarded notion that you're appealing to.I didn't say this. Find where I said this, right now. Think long and hard, imbecile. Show it and quote it. You are hallucinating.>Also if the nation is benefiting from immigration, and you just don't want them because it's just your opinion that you don't like brown people then yea you're ruining it for everyone else that benefits from immigration.The justification of a policy on the basis of its economic benefit to a majority is no different from justifying the harm to a minority group for the benefit of a majority; certainly economics is not the motive of all actions. If it is benefit, benefit who? Many are harmed by immigration, whether it is on an objective or subjective basis, and whether this constitutes a minority of individuals (racists or poor trades) is not an objective imperative for policy choice.I already said I dislike the idea of supporting immigration for the nation. In fact, I hate the nation and I am not a nationalist.>We've already established that a nation is not your house,Actually this is a point that I brought up specifically to bait this particular discussion. A home or property is simply an enclosure of territory. Whether that enclosure is one square meter or one million, there is no additional moral weight one way or the other what one wishes to do in a particular enclosed territory. Just because I will never see something occur in a territory which I subjectively define as something I wish to exert voting influence over, does not mean I cannot; as, if, FGM occurred in a forest where no one witnessed it.>That's what being a dick is called. Its like you've studied debate to be a professional asshole.Vacuous AI moralism.
>>84249222>You're not out in the world advocating it to stop.This is irrelevant to the argument. You are now making attempts at armchair psychology instead of actual arguments.>You also know your logic is a double-edged sword. You being an incel doesn't really impact me in any way. According to you, I should care because one day you might randomly shoot a bunch of people.Now, when you AI, the AI is often not capable of comprehending the point of an argument beyond the most simplistic of terms. In this instance, I am not making a normative judgement that you ought or ought not care about anything. I came into this thread to reply to a question offered, but I am not telling you that you ought or ought not support one thing or another.>It's funny you can't even have this conversation without making stuff up. I didn't demand anything.Actually, when you make a normative statement (something is bad, you're bad) it is an implication that one ought to do something or not do something. This is the only basis by which I say this, whether you say directly to one person or another does not matter, you are making a normative judgement that it is good to do one thing and bad to do another.LLM-isms are very easy to notice, anon. However, in good faith, I still offer fully functional arguments. At least read your posts over to ensure they are coherent and your bot doesn't hallucinate.
>>84247267I'm not even white and I'm mad for you guys. If I go on a vacation to Europe I want to see beautiful white people everywhere, not Pakistanis or Somalians.
>>84249228I can't deal with this word salad.Who is being harmed by immigration?
>>84249331The host population that at the very least is subject to unwanted and unnecessary foreign competition but in reality is almost always subject to governments and corporations doing social engineering and putting their thumbs on the scale to determine the winners and losers in life which is why precisely 0 (zero) pro-immigration faggots will ever crusade against affirmative action style policies.
>>84249331>I can't deal with this word salad.Too bad you failed basic literacy.>Who is being harmed by immigration?Do you believe no one ever has been harmed by immigration? And what is harm?
>>84249366Well I do come from a very poor county in the United States. I do believe that people have been harmed in immigration but I think it's a small percentage of people who have been victims of crimes by immigrants. Actually in the US immigrants crime rate is lower than those than citizens. So if that's your take on it, its completely null.
>>84249400>Actually in the US immigrants crime rate is lower than those than citizensOnly if you include blacks and other racial aliens "born there." The scum who came up with this rhetoric fail to mention this every single time.
>>84249415but to be fair even if it were 1% or 2% hire you do agree its a small amount of crime in comparison to the amount of immigrants coming in?
>>84249428No, I don't agree with it at all, and we're not morally obligated to take on that burden even in your extremely generous estimation of how much worse they make our countries. We don't owe foreign masses better lives at our own expense.
>>84249465So for immigrants to come into your country you believe they should be perfect, even better than us?
>>84249479I don't think we should have any significant percentage of racial aliens in our countries at all. Lack of homogeneity leads to incredible corruption, unnecessary and nasty Darwinian competition and myriad of problems, and there's no good reason we have to share our territory with genetic outsiders. You faggots seem to understand this concept when it comes to other racial groups, strangely enough. You seemed to whine about colonialism for long enough, after all.
>>84249501Can you tell me about this corruption, and Darwinian competition? Is it here in the room with us?
>>84247205>unpopular opinions>states the most obvious and accepted opinion of anyone with a bachelor's degreeJesus OP. Better late than never I guess.
>>84249518>guys, GUYS! Brazil and India, the most "diverse" countries in the world aren't corrupt shitholesThanks for the post Moshe
>>84249524so you think its just due to genetic factors? thanks for proving your racist kek
>>84249400>So if that's your take on it, its completely null.No, it isn't. Many are objectively harmed, and even assuming your statement is entirely factual (that every single cohort of immigrants universally commit lower crime in all cases than the native population) the fact remains that the statement:>Many are harmed by immigrationis true. It is not null even in the most generous possible reality for you. But when I say immigrant, I am not talking strictly of a specific legal class of individuals (illegal or legal immigrants, migrant workers, etc) who can have lower crime rates as a result of the nature of their social position (e.g., entering to work, living in an unpoliced slum with other immigrants) in which a determination of this nature is liable to extreme inaccuracy; for example, this study: >https://www.cato.org/blog/immigrants-have-lower-lifetime-incarceration-rates-native-born-americansmakes several mistakes: One, it compares "native citizens," a group which contains Black Americans, with immigrants, and the black crime rate dramatically inflates overall violent crime in the U.S., and second, "White Americans" includes Hispanic Americans that identify as White, or who did not identify their ethnicity. This problem is well known, and I discussed it here: https://thebarchive.com/b/thread/939512180/#939525162(cont)
>>84249534>>84249400My post then:Proof of self reported quality:https://bjs.ojp.gov/topics/race-ethnicity>Terms & Definitions>Ethnicity>A classification based on Hispanic culture and origin, regardless of race. Persons are asked directly if they are Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino before being asked about their racial category.This issue of hispanics being included as white in crime reporting is actually being pursued by the UCLA, and has a section on wikipedia, too.>Not all agencies provide ethnicity data; therefore, the race and ethnicity totals will not equal.In addition to what has already been written, the FBI statistics say that some of this data is sourced from itself admits ethnicity will be off (this largely means pacific islander and latino, since black is not a self-reported statistic and white is the default for hispanics that do not explicitly identify themselves as such:>The ethnic origin categorieswere adopted from the U.S. Department of Commerce and are Hispanic and not Hispanic. Included asHispanic are all persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanishculture or origin, regardless of race. Ethnicity is an optional data element.From Texas justice, and finally this from Wikipedia and sourced from the ACLU:>Race and ethnicity: The UCR tracks crime for the racial category of "White" to include both Hispanic and non-Hispanic ethnicities. According to the ACLU, with over 50 million Latinos residing in the United States, this hides the incarceration rates for Latinos vis-a-vis marijuana-related offenses, as they are considered "White" with respect to the UCR.[33](cont)
>>84247205>Overemphasis on curbing immigration is reactionary behavior to government dysfunction and economic dissatisfactionno it's not, it's a reaction to having 85 iq rapists from syria flood your streets
>>84249400>>84249534>>84249544The evidence that illegal immigrants commit less crime is heavily contested, and even the Cato Institute (responsible for essentially the only noteworthy study on this*) admits there may be other factors. In actuality, I can summarize my argument thus:I do not think illegal immigrants commit higher crime than all citizens. Find where I have said this at any point. I have only said that much harm has occurred and I assert the objective fact that there is no basis by which you can say it is irrational, ignorant, or stupid to dislike it. If such a policy existed which harmed Native Americans, that would be an extremely small percentage of the American population harmed per capita; but this does not create an objective or normative imperative why we should or should not oppose the law.*https://www.cato.org/blog/immigrants-have-lower-lifetime-incarceration-rates-native-born-americans
>>84249530Yes, and your only response is to screech "racist" because you have no actual model or worldview that actually explains these differences and focal phenomenon. It's all just vibes via top-down brainwash or subversive rat fink rhetoric.
>>84249259>This is irrelevant to the argument. You are now making attempts at armchair psychology instead of actual arguments.Sorry, you, Reddit debate class 101, didn't prepare you for this, but this is my argument. You claimed to care about this horrible subject in order to play on your morality. So I counter that by saying you don't really care.>AiNo, but this is your argument back to you. You are making a racist judgment based on a racist talking point by claiming immigrants harm the country, thus harming you. I'm pointing out how you act harms our country. If you haven't taken an economics class in some time. Immigrants also contribute massively to our country. That guy who can't speak English at home contributes more to our country than you.>when you makeI didn't. Not only did I not, but your whole post had nothing to do with any sort of statement. You tried to put words I didn't say to try to counter a point I didn't make. If you haven't been paying attention, this white supremacist view you have is really only good for rural sundown towns. Basing a whole country's policy on it has destroyed America.
>>84249585America was better when it was a whiter country though, QED
>>84249400Further evidence. If you believe I said that it was an objective fact that in all cases and in all populations all immigrants always commit more crime than native populations in every single cohort, this would be false. You must find where I have even said once that immigrants commit MORE crime. Here is an example: White native born citizens commit less crime than most other immigrant groups, and is lower than Hispanic illegal immigrants. For legal immigrants, it is lower, and this is not a concern to me because of the high economic status of most legal immigrants due to the high barrier to entry. But this can be refuted simply because of the fact that native born White crime is already inflated, and this attested to by the ACLU, through the reporting of Hispanic individuals as White by the criminal system.>>84249585>So I counter that by saying you don't really care.No, this is not how you debate. Whether I in fact care or not about FGM does not make a difference, because it was an example argument indicating that whether or not something happens to another person is NOT an objective reason to care or not to care.You are extremely illiterate.>I didn't. Not only did I not, but your whole post had nothing to do with any sort of statement. You tried to put words I didn't say to try to counter a point I didn't make.Yes you did. This is a normative statement, you imbecile:>I think it is morally reprehensible for you to deny these peopleYou are objectively a desperate imbecile.
>>84249592You mean it was a 3rd world country filled with people who fucked their own sisters and died by the ripe old age of 20. Idk, maybe turning America white would have worked if you guys didn't pick the most retarded people to lead you white revolution. You guys are just lucky the leftists and liberals are pussy/
>>84249602The "white" crime stat category in America is tainted. Go visit any Sheriff's most wanted website and look at the "white" men listed there and tell me if you notice anything.
>>84249585>I'm pointing out how you act harms our country.You are again making irrelevant points. Read what I wrote here: >>84248556 Which is that GDP does not provide an objective reason to support immigration.You are using AI and it is hallucinating so badly that it can no longer stay on topic. You are telling me that because "the country" benefits, I must support a policy. "The country" may benefit from colonialism, ought I to support that? No. Whether it did or did not does not provide a normative basis for whether I ought to.You are getting increasingly desperate. I hope it really is AI that's arguing, because then you would be truly retarded.
>>84249608It was one of the most prosperous countries in the world with very high rates of literacy (except for the niggers) and incest was a taboo unlike the fecaloid zone you hail from with high rates of consanguineous marriages
>>84249602>No this is not how you debateCorrect, we don't have moderators or anything. We're having a debate by the Reddit standards, which is this. You weren't using it as an example of something harming other people. As I said, you were using it as proof that you care about the greater good as a way to back your flawed argument. But since you clearly are too dumb to come up with different things, I'll bite. If you did in fact care about FGM or things like it, then it doesn't make sense for you to be anti-immigration. You claim you care about FGM, but are against people fleeing their country that does it for yours. Unless I'm misreading, and you caring about FGM isn't being against it.>You are objectively a desperate imbecile.And you are a racist POS. I'm going guess your the type of guy who claim they hate black but all your porn is filled with white women fucking them.
>>84247895>Immigration is a natural process within history*invasion and conquest
>>84247205>OP is a disingenuous lying kike.
>>84249617>Again you are I'm not. You just can't counter it. >ReadI did, and it's wrong. I'm glad your ok with America turning into a 3rd world country, so you can have it be all white, but I'm going to guess most Americans aren't. In fact, a lot of MAGA are starting to reject MAGA because they don't want to live in a country where filling up their cars will cost them over $100 a week.>You tellingFirst off, I'm not using AI. No, my original argument is that you should mind your business and live your life. That's what an immigrant does, legal or not; it doesn't really have any impact on your life. That day labor has as much impact on your life as the average incel does on mine, which is zero. You, however, are trying to argue the greater good and not to beat a dead horse using FGM as your example.>You're getting desperate Not really. You're the one who twice tried to put word in my mouth so you can make a point.
>>84249642>You weren't using it as an example of something harming other people.No I did not. Here is the actual statement:>I care about, for instance, female genital mutilation despite it having no conceivable bearing on my life in any way. Ought I not, because it doesn't affect me? Or if you say I ought to care because women are being harmed, then why? Why ought I care about something that does not affect me?This is called an argument by counterexample. Your premise was that I should not care about things which do not affect me: >>84249125>This is just like the "I don't want trans in my face " line conservatives say. You don't actually live with them. You don't want them in your country.and I provided a counterexample to the rule by demonstrating FGM. Whether I individual care or do not care is irrelevant, as the sole purpose of the argument is this:>Whether something affects you is not the basis for whether you should care.Do you see now?I do not care if you believe I am good or evil, and I do not believe good and evil are real concepts. I do not care about those labels or words. You can assume I am totally depraved and evil, it has no bearing on the point I repeatedly tell you, which is that you have no objective basis to say that someone ought not oppose immigration. All you have done is repeatedly and desperately say>It's good for the nation!I do not care about whether my nation thrives. I think it is a horrible place, and I want it to fail.>Racist!This is a moral judgement.>Piece of shit!Another moral judgement.And other ad hominems. Keep trying.
>>84249698>I'm not. You just can't counter it.I directly countered it and provided a counterargument.>but I'm going to guess most Americans aren't.Appeal to the majority.>In fact, a lot of MAGA are starting to reject MAGA because they don't want to live in a country where filling up their cars will cost them over $100 a week.Appeal to a supposed in group.>No, my original argument is that you should mind your business and live your lifeMoral imperatives are not arguments. "You should.">You, however, are trying to argue the greater good and not to beat a dead horse using FGM as your example.I am not arguing the greater good, I explicitly refute moralism. I do not believe there is a greater good.>Not really. You're the one who twice tried to put word in my mouth so you can make a point.Yes you are, which is why you are repeatedly providing moral pleas and imperatives rather than arguments. You aren't very bright, are you?
>>84249703>No i did notSure, kiddo, I bet this works well on Reddit>counterexampleFor a counterexample, there has to be an example to counter. There wasn't; you just randomly brought it up as an example. >is irrelevantIt is>Do you see nowI'm waiting for you to see it. I really should not have to spell it out for you. You're using an anecdotal fallacy.>I do not careYeah, no shit. Thanks for proving me right kiddo. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
>>84247267Yeah everything else can come after.If immigration is a distraction, it needs to be dealt with first.
My unpopular opinion is that having a rape fetish doesn't mean you will enjoy being raped.
>>84249760>For a counterexample, there has to be an example to counter. There wasn't; you just randomly brought it up as an example.There was an example. You provided this case:>This is just like the "I don't want trans in my face " line conservatives say. You don't actually live with them. You don't want them in your country.That immigrants don't affect me, and I provided you the direct counterexample that something not affecting me is not a basis for why I should or should not care, further adding that if I should care because it harms women, then why should I care if it does not affect me?>I'm waiting for you to see it. I really should not have to spell it out for you. You're using an anecdotal fallacy.No, it isn't. An anecdotal fallacy is where you use experiential evidence from your own life as a way to refute an empirical statement about the world. In this case, I am making the counterargument that something which does not affect you is not something one ought not to care about, as in the case of female genital mutilation. The example can be taken further and cover murder (why care about another person being murdered if it does not affect you?) or any other number of things. You are desperately posturing now. Go find the definition of an "anecdotal fallacy." Go ahead. Now, posturing is only going to work if you haven't made yourself out to be a complete imbecile who doesn't understand what an argument from a counterexample is.
>>84249814>There was an example. You provided this case:That was my first post to you. Thus, it could not have been a counterexample to what I said.>AddingNo, I said you didn't actually care about FGM. It's implied that the reason you don't actually do anything about this thing you claimed to care about it is that it doesn't affect you. >Your own lifeAgain, you claimed you care about FGM. Let me say that again, YOU said you cared about. You can't get any more personal than claiming you personally care about something. I tried to get you out and gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you didn't take it. Idk that you tried to backpedal.
>>84249859>That was my first post to you. Thus, it could not have been a counterexample to what I said.You are such a monumental imbecile it is genuinely hilarious. Here is what a counterexample is:>A counterexample is a specific example that contradicts a claim, hypothesis, or generalization. In logic a counterexample disproves a universally stated claim, and does so rigorously in the fields of mathematics and philosophy.[1] For example, the statement that "student John Smith is not lazy" is a counterexample to the generalization "students are lazy",You made the claim:>This is just like the "I don't want trans in my face " line conservatives say. You don't actually live with them. You don't want them in your country.I am sorry. I am so sorry. You are so stupid (and evidently desperate) it's actually hilarious.>No, I said you didn't actually care about FGM. It's implied that the reason you don't actually do anything about this thing you claimed to care about it is that it doesn't affect you.And this has nothing to do with the argument. You are trying way too hard. The actual moral content is irrelevant to the structure of an argument which sets up a hypothetical premise (FGM) and a claim that just because (FGM) does not affect oneself, one ought not care.>Idk that you tried to backpedal.I never backpedaled. Again, you're trying too hard. Now can you explain why you don't know what a counterexample is or was that a hallucination of your LLM? At this point it would make you look less imbecilic if you came out and admitted it, because this does not do any favors for you.
>>84249859>>84249911To make it simpler for you, in the same way that the argument>students are lazy,receives the counterexample:>student John Smith is not lazyThe argument:>This is just like the "I don't want trans in my face " line conservatives say. You don't actually live with them. You don't want them in your country.Receives the counterexample that>FGM is an example of something which does not affect me.>Ought I not to care because it does not affect me?>And if I cared, why should I?This is how basic argumentation works. Introducing it as>I care about FGMDoes not make it any more of an anecdote than>I care about immigrants, and I do not think that just because it does not hurt you for immigrants to be harmed doesn't mean you should support it.Is not an anecdote. The argument is actually:>One should not hurt someone just because it does not affect them.In both cases, the argument is:>Just because something does not affect you does not mean you should not care.
>>84247267I second this a a western european
>>84249911>You are such a monumental imbecile it is genuinely hilarious. Here is what a counterexample is:I really like that you link a definition you didn't read, trying to pretend that saying FGM is somehow a relevant claim and an absurd attempt to moral grandstand. >You made the claimNo, you made the claim. What part of this do you not understand? You were debating someone else. Your counterclaim was clearly to them because bringing up FGM is a weird claim to a post about making fun of how you and transphobic people talk. Since you're having a hard time understanding.Guy A: Have you noticed that Jim says this or that?You: I care about FGMYou see retarded you sound.>I never backpedaled.You said, and you cared about FGM. Which didn't make it a hypothetical. If you wanted it to be a hypothetical, then you failed to present it as such. I also call BS. You didn't mean it as a hypothetical. You're saying now because you realized you moral grandstanding bit you in the ass. >Explain whyYou clearly don't know what a counterexample. It's pretty clear you saw someone use it on Reddit and thought you would use it here. It's why you used an anecdotal fallacy. What's next, going to pretend that whataboutism isn't a valid argument?
>>84250013>In philosophy, counterexamples are usually used to argue that a certain philosophical position is wrong by showing that it does not apply in certain cases.For example, this idea:>Just because something does not affect me, does not mean I should not care.Is a philosophical position. This is the position you refute by saying:>This is just like the "I don't want trans in my face " line conservatives say. You don't actually live with them. You don't want them in your country.and later you specified unambiguously that this was your original argument: >>84249698>No, my original argument is that you should mind your business and live your life.I.e., that because something does not affect me personally, I should not care. The counterexample is female genital mutilation: The fact that something does not affect me (FGM) is not an objective basis for why I should not care. Whether I actually care about FGM is irrelevant to the argument in the same way that there may not actually be a real student "John Smith," the argument is about the position itself rather than the empirical particulars.I could keep saying this over and over again. You're not really accomplishing anything except demonstrating how desperate and (I'm really sorry) stupid you are. Yes, I knew exactly what you were going to write beforehand and had this already written. Too predictably retarded desu. Posture more?
>>84250013>f you wanted it to be a hypothetical, then you failed to present it as such. I also call BS. You didn't mean it as a hypothetical. You're saying now because you realized you moral grandstanding bit you in the ass.Again, this is totally irrelevant. I have never once said I didn't care about FGM. Go scroll and find where I backpedaled. I am telling you that it is not relevant to the argument. You are trying to say that I don't "truly care" therefore the statement that>just because something doesn't affect you doesn't mean you shouldn't careis false. This is nonsense and has nothing to do with my moral positions.If Hitler says,>I HATE ZE JEWS!!!and then>I care about jews (dying), but just because jews do not affect me does not mean I should not necessarily care about them.Whether Hitler hates the Jews or not is irrelevant to the content of the argument.
>>84249955It's a shame you just found out what a counterexample is. Let me use your examples to show you what you did.>Students are lazy. The thing you're claiming as a counterexample is>I really care about gay rights.You see what's happening. This is exactly what you did. I'll bite again. Explain how you caring about FGM is a counterexample of the claim that transphobic people say they don't want transgenderism thrown in their face. To them trans people just exist,"transgenderism being thrown in their face."I'll wait
>>84250057>It's a shame you just found out what a counterexample is. Let me use your examples to show you what you did.>You see what's happening. This is exactly what you did. >Students are lazy>The thing you're claiming as a counterexample is>I really care about gay rights.No, that's not the argument and you're still desperately posturing.>I care about, for instance, female genital mutilation despite it having no conceivable bearing on my life in any way. Ought I not, because it doesn't affect me? Or if you say I ought to care because women are being harmed, then why? Why ought I care about something that does not affect me?The argument structure is simply that there is a thing X (female genital mutilation). It is an example of something which I care about, but does not affect me. I ask you whether I should or should not care about it, because it does not affect me; if I should, why, if it does not affect me? The question is not about the moral content of FGM itself, but on the structure that X (thing which does not affect me) necessitates that I should not care.>Explain how you caring about FGM is a counterexample of the claim that transphobic people say they don't want transgenderism thrown in their face>I'll waitSure. As stated in the argument, why should the transphobic person care about the lives of transgender people if it does not affect them? Answer that.
>>84250055>It's irrelevantIt's really now. There's a big difference between saying you care about something and saying something is hypothetical. If your girlfriend cared about the BBC. You wouldn't think she was thinking hypothetically. >I never once said I didn't careYou heavily implied it when you said it was irrelevant. By calling it irrelevant, you showed you didn't care.Again, the example is bad. It's another example of you saying you care about something but only as a moral grandstand. It's like this. imagine your talking to someone who claimed they care about the environment. You found out that they don't do anything to help the environment.
>>84250093>No, that's not the argument and you're still desperately posturing.It's exactly what you did.>The argument structure is simply that there is a thing X (female genital mutilation). It is an example of something which I care about, but does not affect me. I ask you whether I should or should not care about it, because it does not affect me; if I should, why, if it does not affect me? The question is not about the moral content of FGM itself, but about the structure that X (thing which does not affect me) necessitates that I should not care.That is a great AI statement, unfortunately, it makes no sense in relation to what I asked. >a stated argumentThat wasn't the stated argument. In fact, my original comment wasn't an argument at all but an observation.
>>84250109>>84250133>You heavily implied it when you said it was irrelevant. By calling it irrelevant, you showed you didn't care.No, it's irrelevant to the argument about whether someone should or should not care about something just because it does not affect them.>It's another example of you saying you care about something but only as a moral grandstandI am not moral grandstanding. A moral grandstand is:>acting or speaking in a way intended to attract the good opinion of other people who are watchingThis is not how it was used. Again, I do not care about your opinion on whether FGM is good or bad. It is an example of something which does not affect a person, but which one could agree could be cared about regardless.>It's like this. imagine your talking to someone who claimed they care about the environment. You found out that they don't do anything to help the environment.No it isn't. If someone says>Global warming won't affect me because I am rich and can afford to migrate and protect myself. However, I care about the environment. Why should I not care, just because it does not affect me?Sorry, sorry, sorry little man.>That is a great AI statement, unfortunately, it makes no sense in relation to what I asked.>a stated argumentAn observation made in refutation of a claim is an argument.>a : the act or process of arguing, reasoning, or discussing : argumentation>b: a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of viewYou provided an observation of a fact. My goodness, this only gets worse and worse for you. I honestly kind of feel bad for you now. It does feel like picking on the disabled kid.
>>84250133But I'll reiterate the entirety of the initial argument for you:This is the argument I made:>>84249148>I am not obligated except by your moral dogma to vote in accordance with immigration. Even if the term was "ick," let us say, there is no basis by which this is less rational than voting for a change in the color or shape of the American flag. It doesn't affect me, does it? It is socially constructed, and those who dislike it can simply ignore it. Yet there is no rational reason to or not to vote to change the flag, and if such a proposition existed that the flag be changed, I cannot be called "really bad" simply for having a difference in taste.This is your argument:>>84249125>This is just like the "I don't want trans in my face " line conservatives say. You don't actually live with them. You don't want them in your country. Immigrants, legal and illegal, probably do more to help your country than you do. Also, no one gives a shit about the flag.This is an example (trans people) followed by an argument supported by the fact (you don't actually live with them, i.e., they don't affect you), followed by an attempt at psychoanalysis, followed then by the argument that "immigrants do more...", followed by a refutation of the example used as a flag.I argued against this with this:>You are just giving more moral imperatives that I ought not care about something that doesn't affect me. This is a simple moral dogma. I care about, for instance, female genital mutilation despite it having no conceivable bearing on my life in any way. Ought I not, because it doesn't affect me? Or if you say I ought to care because women are being harmed, then why? Why ought I care about something that does not affect me?Which is where you see the example appear. This only gets sadder and sadder.
>>84250145>No, it's irrelevant to the argument about whether someone should or should not care about something just because it does not affect them.You keep saying this, but it's irrelevant. Could I I bend the knee a little and acknowledge that you "misspoke." You shouldn't have phrased it as if you personally care about something if it's a hypothetical. Sure, I can, and I even tried. You ignored it. So here we are, me being a dick and using your own exact wording. Because you "misspoke." Your hypothetical isn't a hypothetical at all. >Global warningI like how your proof of my argument is the same as your argument(It is, by the way), you had to make up a completely different scenario. >An observation made in refutation of a claim is an argument.How many times do I have to tell you? That was my first post to you. The only other post I made before this is this one.>>84249056I think you must be autistic to think a snarky reply is the same as refuting.
>>84250179Your dyslexia is showing. First You're pretending that this>the "I don't want trans in my face " line conservatives saywas a reply to I am not obligated except by your moral dogma, but it's the reverse.Next, you didn't understand my argument, and you ignored most of it. Your argument is that you are not obligated except by your moral dogma, but i am forced to be obligated except by your moral dogma. The thing you greatly benefit from my moral dogma, whether you like it or not. However, we are all suffering from your.I could always point out the efile, which shows that you probably don't actually believe your own moral dogma, but were brainwashed so rich people can fuck children. Although that would be in badfaith
UNPOPULAR OPINION!>it's boilerplate zogbot shit from a LLM
>>84250196>You keep saying this, but it's irrelevant. Could I I bend the knee a little and acknowledge that you "misspoke." You shouldn't have phrased it as if you personally care about something if it's a hypothetical. Sure, I can, and I even tried. You ignored it. So here we are, me being a dick and using your own exact wording. Because you "misspoke." Your hypothetical isn't a hypothetical at all.No, I did not misspeak. I do care about FGM, I also used it as a hypothetical. A hypothetical is:>imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true:I used the instance as an example of something which does not affect one yet can be cared about. I then asked: Ought I or ought I not care about it simply because it does not affect me?>I like how your proof of my argument is the same as your argument(It is, by the way), you had to make up a completely different scenario.That's because I'm showing you how it works. You did not replicate the structure of the argument. If someone cares about the environment, why should they or should they not care just because it does not affect them? This is the exact same argument with environment substituted for FGM. I.e., caring about the environment (something which does not affect the person) is not a reason they should not care, in the same way that immigrants or transgenders not affecting something is not a reason they should not care.Again, you have said something objectively false here:>For a counterexample, there has to be an example to counter. There wasn't; you just randomly brought it up as an example.Then here:>an absurd attempt to moral grandstand.then here:Then here:>my original comment wasn't an argument at all but an observation.>How many times do I have to tell you? That was my first post to you. The only other post I made before this is this one.You are getting absurdly desperate in a pathetic way. Keep going though, it is interesting to see how desperate one person could be.
>>84247205Easy to say why that opinion is unpopularJew
>>84250237>You're pretending that this>the "I don't want trans in my face " line conservatives say>was a reply to>I am not obligated except by your moral dogma, but it's the reverse.Objectively false:Post 1: >>84249071 >I am not obligated except by your moral dogma to vote...Post 2: >>84249125>This is just like the "I don't want trans in my face " line conservatives say.Post 3: >>84249148>You are just giving more moral imperatives that I ought not care about something that doesn't affect me. This is a simple moral dogma. I care about, for instance, female genital mutilation despite it having no conceivable bearing on my life in any way. Ought I not, because it doesn't affect me? Or if you say I ought to care because women are being harmed, then why? Why ought I care about something that does not affect me?Objectively false from you.>Your argument is that you are not obligated except by your moral dogma, but i am forced to be obligated except by your moral dogma. The thing you greatly benefit from my moral dogma, whether you like it or not. However, we are all suffering from your.No it isn't. I am not saying you are required: >>84249259>In this instance, I am not making a normative judgement that you ought or ought not care about anything. I came into this thread to reply to a question offered, but I am not telling you that you ought or ought not support one thing or another.I never once made a normative claim about what you ought to do. Find one example. Go ahead.Seriously, go ahead.
>>84250237You have now stated demonstrably false facts many times, just off the top of my head:>For a counterexample, there has to be an example to counter. There wasn't; you just randomly brought it up as an example.This is not what a counterexample is. Then:>That was my first post to you. Thus, it could not have been a counterexample to what I said.False. Then:>That wasn't the stated argument. In fact, my original comment wasn't an argument at all but an observation.Again, false. " a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view."You can keep going with this, it only makes it funnier. This is not including all of the structural issues in many of your "arguments," but these are pointed out every time you post.
I don't know where else to post. A girl I like got the stupidest tattoo imaginable. I told her it looked nice but they don't even make sense and look cheap and tacky. It really broke me. I will still try to fuck her but I fucking can't respect women. I tried.
>>84250248>I do care about FGMThen my point stands>I also used it as a hypotheticalIt can't be both. That's not me being a dick. It's how language works; you have to pick one. It can't be a true statement and a hypothesis at the same time.>I used the instance as an example of something which does not affect one yet can be cared about. I then asked: Ought I or ought I not care about it simply because it does not affect me?Again, you moral grandstand. You claimed you care about something as an argument. >I'm showing youNo, you aren't; all my examples of what you've been doing are exactly what you are doing. You don't like them because they trigger you. Again if someone says,"Isn't it funny how black people say this and mean this?" Your reply, saying you care about circumcision, is a nonsensical rebuttal. >You said something objectively falseYet you just said you cared. You keep saying over and over again. As if it's supposed to move me to tears.>DesperateSays the guy who's dug himself in a hole. You know, even if it's in a hypothetical. My argument, which you haven't actually rebutted, is still. Even hypothetical FGM doesn't match with your other post to that other guy. As I stated before, it's weird to take an anti-immigration stance and then say you care about this in a real or hypothetical sense. How can you care if you want to force women running from their countries that do that back to those places?
>>84248577>we want them gone because they cant stop raping everythingIf i came to your country, i'd cum in you anon
>>84247205Your opinion is not unpopular and it is incorrect, see >>84247974 and pic related.Immigration equal to around 0.5% of the population per year has little short term effect, but there is still an effect. If I spat in your coffee and said "heh, it's nothing, the bacteria in my mouth is not harmful and will die in the hot coffee anyway, also you're rich, this doesn't affect your life at all", how would you respond? There are also significant long term effects since certain immigrant groups do not integrate and never pay more in taxes than they receive from the government, which is often higher due to their increased law enforcement costs. Immigration, the kind the west is getting today as opposed to productive immigrants with genuine university education, is invariably a net cost to the economy. Citizens are quite literally being asked to tolerate a decline in standards of living for more immigration.Neither are immigrants being scapegoated, their deleterious effect is not being blown out of proportion, rather most media outlets refuse to talk about it. Even Fox news will say "immigrants are hard working salt of the earth, our problem is only with the criminals, we're not racist guys!". They would never mention the fact 10s of millions of Hispanic immigrants are a net cost to the taxpayer, similar to how African Americans have not made a net contribution since civil rights. This information is incredibly controversial and destabilizing combined with the fact that every white man is being asked to tolerate racial discrimination against him in every aspect of life for "diversity" then pay extra taxes to people who hate him, brainwashed to blame his "racial microaggressions" for their underachievement.
>>84247205If immigrants were so great then why do they need to FLEE their home countries instead of turning them into great places to live?
>>84250266Again retard>>84249071Your reply is not to me.>>84249125My snarky observation.>>84249148You now have a rebuttal, first talking about the moral to me. I say autistic because you still think that's an argument.>>84250266You're are that's my argument. You haven't said anything otherwise. Your whole argument to the other person and me. Was essentially defending the current immigration stance that is happening right now. Which every America has to deal with the fallout of it.>I never once madeI never claimed you did. You literally just wrote a whole made-up quote so you could argue with it.
>>84250308>>84250360>Then my point standsNo, it does not.>It can't be both. That's not me being a dick. It's how language works; you have to pick one. It can't be a true statement and a hypothesis at the same time.A hypothetical can be based on a true fact:>A possible or hypothetical situation or proposition.>Based upon a hypothesis; conjectural. >(philosophy) Conditional; contingent upon some hypothesis/antecedent.The actual nature of it being true or false is not necessary, as it says here:>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hypothetical>imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true:Not necessarily meaning:>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/not%20necessarily>possibly but not certainly--used to say that something is not definitely trueI am so sorry, little man.>No, you aren't; all my examples of what you've been doing are exactly what you are doing. You don't like them because they trigger you.Not at all.>Again if someone says,"Isn't it funny how black people say this and mean this?" Your reply, saying you care about circumcision, is a nonsensical rebuttal.No, what you are saying is not an equivalent argument to what was made.>Yet you just said you cared. You keep saying over and over again. As if it's supposed to move me to tears.No, I am telling you it's irrelevant the content of my caring or not caring, because it is used as an example of something which can be cared about but which does not affect one.>My argument, which you haven't actually rebutted, is still. Your argument has been directly and definitively refuted, every single time you posted.(cont)
>>84250360>Even hypothetical FGM doesn't match with your other post to that other guy. As I stated before, it's weird to take an anti-immigration stance and then say you care about this in a real or hypothetical sense. How can you care if you want to force women running from their countries that do that back to those places?No, the two examples are:>I can care about immigration even if it does not affect me, just as I can care about FGM even if it does not affect me.This:>How can you care if you want to force women running from their countries that do that back to those places?Is the actual definition of a whataboutism:>"Whataboutism" or "whataboutery" (as in, "but what about X?") refers to the propaganda strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of offering an explanation or defense against the original accusation.My point remains exactly where it was: Why should I not care about immigrants, just because they do not affect me?It is also extremely cringe that you're pretending to be a different anon after getting raped. If you are that desperate to try again, rewrite a counterargument to this: >>84249148
>>84247267Can you guys stop bombing the Middle East then? Thanks.
>>84250284>Is faleThen objectively prove it's false. I've already asked you to explain how your comment was a counterclaim to what I said. You did not. Instead, you just double down and try to explain your statement in a longer way. >false thenAgain, prove it. You claimed it's false. Prove that post wasn't my first post here.>Again falseNope, this isn't Reddit; every post isn't an open invitation to argue. If I write a post saying I like flowers. It's not a counterargument that flowers are bad.>You can keep goingI got time.>all of the structural issues in many of your argumentsSure, but it would just look like you saying in an act of desperation, and I would point out how i'm still beating you just to trigger you.
>>84250382>Then objectively prove it's false. I've already asked you to explain how your comment was a counterclaim to what I said. You did not. Instead, you just double down and try to explain your statement in a longer way.Here:>This is just like the "I don't want trans in my face " line conservatives say. You don't actually live with them. You don't want them in your country. Immigrants, legal and illegal, probably do more to help your country than you do. Also, no one gives a shit about the flag.You use the example that trans people don't affect conservatives, and therefore the argument:>the fact remains that I am not obligated except by your moral dogma to vote in accordance with immigration.Is false. Yet, this is untrue: The fact that something doesn't affect me (e.g., transgenders, immigrants, or FGM) is not a reason I ought, or ought not, care. I provided a direct counterexample to the example of conservatives and transgenders:>You are just giving more moral imperatives that I ought not care about something that doesn't affect me. This is a simple moral dogma. I care about, for instance, female genital mutilation despite it having no conceivable bearing on my life in any way. Ought I not, because it doesn't affect me? Or if you say I ought to care because women are being harmed, then why? Why ought I care about something that does not affect me?reiterating this point:>Just because something does not affect me, does not mean I ought not care.You did not ever provide an objective reason I ought or ought not care, thus you did not refute the argument.>Nope, this isn't Reddit; every post isn't an open invitation to argue. If I write a post saying I like flowers. It's not a counterargument that flowers are bad.No, it is a counterargument when someone says:>There is no objective reason for me not to care about immigrants.And you reply with:>Here's why. (e.g., doesn't affect you)Still desperate, little man.
>>84247205Immigrants have literally been synonymous with crime and corruption since Irish gangs roamed NYC and acted as free votes for corrupt Tammany Hall politicians. To say nothing about the catastrophic effect immigrants had on the Roman Empire. Did you know that despite the great records the Romans kept, not a single European noble family could legitimately trace descent from any Roman family? The barbarian immigrants replaced Romans that thoroughly and reduced the others to peasants and poor townsfolk. Immigration means the death of whatever society that chooses it, and it's pretty obvious inviting violent and rapey Hispanics, Muslims, Africans, and Indians is a path to a new society that will be just as shitty as the third world.
Not really an unpopular opinion. Also said dysfunctional government and plutocrats presumably responsible for said economic dissatisfaction were the ones pushing for open borders and undermining border controls in the first place.
>>84250414>You use the example that trans people don't affect conservatives, and therefore the argument:Nope, but close. That is just you reading way too much into it. I've already explained what that statement is, and it was 100% not what you said it is. It's a statement about how people disguise their racism, sexism, and homophobia as something minor.>Is false. Yet, this is untrue:You're getting your two posts mixed up, pal.This statement>Is false. Yet, this is untrue: The fact that something doesn't affect me (e.g., transgenders, immigrants, or FGM) is not a reason I ought, or ought not, care. I provided a direct counterexample to the example of conservatives and transgender people:Doesn't magical prove what my first post was?Nice try, though. Also, not what I said. You keep trying to change the argument.>You didn't give an objective reason.We aren't having that kind of debate; we aren't friends. I'm not trying to convince you, Chad, to take to the high school prom and let bust you boy pussy cherrry. I'm giving you an objective fact that is based on our reality. Your thing is destroying America. You have not rebutter to that at all. >When someone saysYEah except I didn't say that at all. I said, Conservatives always say the only hate trans people because they are being crammed down their throat. When they mean being crammed down their throat, it's just trans people existing.""There is no subjective or objective reason for you to think that statement is telling you to get the argument, "Something does not affect me..."
>>84250382I'll reiterate, just to be nice.>There is some X. I care about X. X does not affect me. Why ought I not care about X, if X does not harm me? And if you say it is because X harms Y, why not?The basic structure of the argument, and you can substitute X for immigration, transgenders, or FGM. The actual argument is that you have not provided a reason I ought care whether there are immigrants, if immigrants do not necessarily affect me. Now, if you would like to provide the argument, do so. You have not done so, because you had no argument. You have been repeatedly trying to say:>You don't actually care about X!!!!But this is irrelevant to the argument; I am telling you that whether X does or does not affect me, this is not a reason for me to care or not care about X. I may care about X (as in FGM) or I may not (as in transgenders). This is the argument structure which you must refute. It is not a non sequitur, which you implied several times; it is in direct and unambiguous refutation of the claim that I ought not care about transgenders.Do you want to keep evading or do you want to reply? Do you want to say:>I... I never had an argument...: (Nope, this isn't Reddit; every post isn't an open invitation to argue. If I write a post saying I like flowers. It's not a counterargument that flowers are bad.)You can try to refute it, or you can keep saying>p-please... you don't really care about FGM... you're evil... you're a racist POS... you're so morally reprehensible...or you can keep saying>Replying to an argument while someone is arguing with a factual observation is... is... is not a counterargument...or>Hypotheticals are always false....or>It wasn't me... (even if it wasn't, try not to be objectively wrong with every reply)or any number of your imbecilic replies; it's really your choice, but it won't make you look like any less of an imbecile, which is admittedly funny but also very deeply saddening.
>>84250508>Nope, but close. That is just you reading way too much into it. I've already explained what that statement is, and it was 100% not what you said it is. It's a statement about how people disguise their racism, sexism, and homophobia as something minor.>YEah except I didn't say that at all. I said, Conservatives always say the only hate trans people because they are being crammed down their throat. When they mean being crammed down their throat, it's just trans people existing.""There is no subjective or objective reason for you to think that statement is telling you to get the argument, "Something does not affect me..."Objectively false, you even explained the intent of your original argument: >>84249698>First off, I'm not using AI. No, my original argument is that you should mind your business and live your life. That's what an immigrant does, legal or not; it doesn't really have any impact on your life. That day labor has as much impact on your life as the average incel does on mine, which is zero. You, however, are trying to argue the greater good and not to beat a dead horse using FGM as your example.Going to pretend like you didn't write that like you just walked out of a preschool?>nuh uh! I didn't! Nuh uh!Now reply here or walk away with your little tail between your legs: >>84250513It's still funny to me, so I'll look forward to your next elite strategy. "Nuh uh! You! What about you!"
>>84250513>I outh to careNope, not the argument. >IrrelevantIf it were irrelevant, then you wouldn't be having such a hard time with it. It's an easily disprovable statement. Yet you don't.>keep evadingHow am I doing that? I'm literally having to spoon-feed you this post.> ImbecileIf I were an imbecile, you could easily win in a debate. Insead your having to make up quotes and replies because you can't answer my real ones.I imagine this isn't making you feel good. I bet it gets under your skin that you're losing to a moron.
>>84250529>"Something does not affect me..."Objectively false, you even explained the intent of your original argumentGo back. I never did such a thing. You're the only person who has said, Something doesn't affect me">Going to pretendNo, I'm not. At no point in this debate or thread did I imply I have a high IQ. The problem is you seem to think you do, but you can't defeat me; instead have to throw these hissy fits. I've made various claims which you have yet to rebut in any way. We've reitered this argument so many times now, and you keep throwing these hissy fits>It's funnyYou're getting cocky for someone who is losing.
>>84250590>Nope, not the argument.That was literally my argument in the "first post you replied to." Try harder.>If it were irrelevant, then you wouldn't be having such a hard time with it. It's an easily disprovable statement. Yet you don't.I directly refuted it here: >>84249259 noting that it was irrelevant. You kept on later: >>84249642>You weren't using it as an example of something harming other people.(FGM harms other people, by the way. This is what an example is.) I explain this to you in the next post:>This is called an argument by counterexample. Your premise was that I should not care about things which do not affect me:And then you replied with an objectively and unambiguously false statement:>For a counterexample, there has to be an example to counter. There wasn't; you just randomly brought it up as an example.And sourced it later:>>A counterexample is a specific example that contradicts a claim, hypothesis, or generalization. In logic a counterexample disproves a universally stated claim, and does so rigorously in the fields of mathematics and philosophy.[1] For example, the statement that "student John Smith is not lazy" is a counterexample to the generalization "students are lazy",>If I were an imbecile, you could easily win in a debate. Insead your having to make up quotes and replies because you can't answer my real ones.>I imagine this isn't making you feel good. I bet it gets under your skin that you're losing to a moron.There is literally no ambiguity whatsoever. The purpose of your posting is to desperately posture on an irrelevant basket weaving forum, while someone else amuses themself with your responses. Again, you are just projecting your insecurities, that's it.>n-nuh u-uh... y-you...>>84250636>Objectively false, you even explained the intent of your original argumentI am direct quoting your own post.>You're getting cocky for someone who is losing.Am I? Where's your argument?
It's not "scapegoating" when you see newly arrived people raping and killing, and pushing their own cultural practices on you in ways that are strange and intimidating, and decide you would rather have less of that.>but white people also-I don't care. I'm not advocating for more white crime.
>>84250371Literally no one asked Trump to do that, apart from the people who own him.
>>84247267Haha wonder what the natives from Canada to the Caribbean, all the way down to Chile feel.
>>84250669>bad thing happened hundreds of years ago, therefore I am going to make more bad things happen on purpose
this >>84250652I wouldn't give 3 flying fucks about Yoshimoto from Japan or Hans from Deutschland studying electrical engineering and later paying a surplus in taxes. It is the millions upon millions of hispanics, africans, muslims, indians with no education who unilaterally hate the white man and have ridiculously high crime rates.
>>84250729note: all those Indian visas have fake diplomas which counts as no education
>>84250645>That was literally my argument in the "first post you replied to." Try harder.Key replied to. I replied to you because you're the only person who keeps saying this argument you keep saying. Despite my telling you and even retelling you what my argument was. Yet you keep saying your own made-up argument that no one said. >I directlyNo, you labeled it. Pointing out it was a Normative argument isn't actually refuting the point, nor does calling me a name and accusing me of AI>You keptBecause you didn't refute it. Waving your hand and saying it's irrelevant doesn't make it magical, especially given the fact that I always counter with it is.>I explained in the postAnd I corrected you and explained why you were wrong and what the argument is it wasn't a counterexample. You gave some bad and objectively wrong reasons. It wasn't trying to claim that you saying you cared about something multiple times wasn't personal.>There is literally no....Yet you're the one who keeps running away from the argument every time it gets quoted>I am directly quoting.No, you are directly quoting yourself. I've explained it to you many times that I think your own weird, incorrect take. I've explained it the meaning behind what I said. I've done so many times. At this point, even if I had said the other thing would get rid of that argument.
>>84250776It's strictly amusing to have someone say something objectively false again and again, like this:>For a counterexample, there has to be an example to counter. There wasn't; you just randomly brought it up as an example.Only to get refuted with this:>A counterexample is a specific example that contradicts a claim, hypothesis, or generalization. In logic a counterexample disproves a universally stated claim, and does so rigorously in the fields of mathematics and philosophy.[1] For example, the statement that "student John Smith is not lazy" is a counterexample to the generalization "students are lazy",and this:>In philosophy, counterexamples are usually used to argue that a certain philosophical position is wrong by showing that it does not apply in certain cases.And then your response is to... not respond at all and drop it: >>84250027 (you never replied to this rape btw)Changing your argument to that it was a "hypothetical" only to get refuted with the definition of the hypothetical and...So on and so on. Yes, it's funny to me. Posturing movements like trying to psychoanalyze or project insecurity only work when you have not made yourself out to be an unambiguous imbecile. That's all there is to it. You keep saying:>I've made various claims which you have yet to rebut in any way.Yet you get direct and factual refutations every time. It's genuinely a hilarious case study in how desperately someone will try to feel better when they've been completely raped. No matter what you say, you cannot project these insecurities onto me, because you have never once made a factual claim that wasn't refuted and never once formed a valid argument; in fact, it got so dire that you said you never even made an argument, only "claims," conflicting with what you said previously when you called it your "argument."Like the amount of smirking I can do is off the charts. I have never encountered someone this desperate, ever.
>>84250688A couple hundred years ago is nothing and still felt and known by generations. But go on.
>>84250776>Despite my telling you and even retelling you what my argument was. Yet you keep saying your own made-up argument that no one said.Yes, this is what you said: >>84249698>No, my original argument is that you should mind your business and live your life. That's what an immigrant does, legal or not; it doesn't really have any impact on your life. That day labor has as much impact on your life as the average incel does on mine, which is zero. You, however, are trying to argue the greater good and not to beat a dead horse using FGM as your example.This is your own statement.>You gave some bad and objectively wrong reasons.Objectively factual direct refutations. Point out how they are "objectively wrong." Point to a specific example and quote it, then explain what makes it wrong.>No, you are directly quoting yourself. I've explained it to you many times that I think your own weird, incorrect take. I've explained it the meaning behind what I said. I've done so many times. At this point, even if I had said the other thing would get rid of that argument.Again, you explain it yourself:>No, my original argument is that you should mind your business and live your life.Every claim you have made, I have given a direct and unambiguous refutation. Now try again. But you can't really, can you? You just aren't very bright.
>>84250776>>84250784>>84250816How about an exercise. Point to my argument, quote it directly, and provide the post you made to refute it. Go ahead. We will see.
>>84250805why is it the burden of poor white people to suffer rape and murder, and the total erasure of their culture, because very rich people did questionable things hundreds of years ago (that we have more than repaid them for at this point, in all fairness)?
>>84248055you're a dumb nigger retard
>>84250784Except I'm not false. It's not a counterexample. It's an anecdotal fallacy. Pointed out the only reason why you think it;s a counterexample because you are objectively wrong on what my statement was. Saying what a counterexample is doesn't change that.>Changing your argument to that it was a "hypothetical" only to get refuted with the definition of the hypothetical and...Except never changed my argument at all. You the whole kept claiming a statement was hypothetical. When it wasn't. >Yes it's funnyYou write all this, yet I have to remind you. You're the one running away. I've tried multiple times to get the argument back on track, and you avoid it.>It's direIt's not dire. It's unfair and shows how you run and hide from this debate. You keep trying to get me to argue for your own argument instead of the one i make. Which is why i'm winning.
>>84250816>Yes, this is what you said??? Am I missing something? Where did I say the thing? It's clear right here I'm saying that you are worth less than an immigrant. There's no way you got what you said from that.>Objectively factual directOk then, say them again. >EveryclaimYou really haven't. You just keep trying to say what your argument is. You then argue against yourself. At no point in time have I given an actual response to what I said I meant.
>>84250878>Except I'm not false. It's not a counterexample. It's an anecdotal fallacy.And I refuted this too, but here's the definition for what it is:>Misuse of anecdotal evidence in the form of argument from anecdote is an informal fallacy[26] and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy, with statements like "I know a person who..." or "I know of a case where...". This places undue weight on possibly atypical experiences of close peers. If an anecdote illustrates a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered a faulty generalization.I did not use the claim of my liking FGM as evidence to prove or disprove any statement, it was only used as an example of something which is cared about.>Except never changed my argument at all. You the whole kept claiming a statement was hypothetical. When it wasn't.It is a hypothetical:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hypothetical>imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true:>of or based on a hypothesis:>imagined or suggested, but perhaps not true or really happening:Not necessarily:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/not%20necessarily>possibly but not certainly--used to say that something is not definitely true.A hypothetical may or may not be true:>In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation.A hypothetical does not mean: Is definitely false.>You're the one running away>It's unfair and shows how you run and hide from this debateYou are receiving direct refutations every reply, but keep trying to posture, it is hilarious.
>>84250910>??? Am I missing something? Where did I say the thing?>You really haven't. You just keep trying to say what your argument is. You then argue against yourself. At no point in time have I given an actual response to what I said I meant.Your post: >>84249698>First off, I'm not using AI. No, my original argument is that you should mind your business and live your life. That's what an immigrant does, legal or not; it doesn't really have any impact on your life.Yes your situation is very, very dire.>Ok then, say them again.You said, for example:>For a counterexample, there has to be an example to counter. There wasn't; you just randomly brought it up as an example.This is factually incorrect. I refuted it thus:>>A counterexample is a specific example that contradicts a claim, hypothesis, or generalization. In logic a counterexample disproves a universally stated claim, and does so rigorously in the fields of mathematics and philosophy.[1] For example, the statement that "student John Smith is not lazy" is a counterexample to the generalization "students are lazy",>>In philosophy, counterexamples are usually used to argue that a certain philosophical position is wrong by showing that it does not apply in certain cases.Keep trying.
>>84250910>You really haven't. You just keep trying to say what your argument is. You then argue against yourself. At no point in time have I given an actual response to what I said I meant.In fact, none of your examples of anything have not been refuted. You said explicitly and unambiguously that:>>84249760>For a counterexample, there has to be an example to counter. There wasn't; you just randomly brought it up as an example.This is unambiguously false:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/counterexample>an example that refutes or disproves a proposition or theoryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample>A counterexample is a specific example that contradicts a claim, hypothesis, or generalization. >In philosophy, counterexamples are usually used to argue that a certain philosophical position is wrong by showing that it does not apply in certain cases.Regardless of whether it was or wasn't a hypothetical, and I already gave you the definition of a hypothetical, it is still a counterexample. What you said is unambiguously false no matter how desperately you "run and hide."Keep going. You keep claiming there is a refutation somewhere, where is it? No where? Oh please, little man.
>>84250914>I refuted thisNo, you avoidance post where instead of giving an actual argument, you just spat out the definition, which doesn't really refute anything.> Hypothetical The statement, "I care about FGM." is not by any of your definitions a hypothetical.Nice try again>You receiving Oh my mistake I didn't think this whole hissyfit you're going on was your rebuttal. I was expecting a rebuttal to be a counter to my argument, not you verbal reeeeing
>>84250954>No, you avoidance post where instead of giving an actual argument, you just spat out the definition, which doesn't really refute anything.When you make a claim that is factually incorrect, e.g., that "ice" is made of iron and sodium, then a dictionary definition is a direct refutation.>The statement, "I care about FGM." is not by any of your definitions a hypothetical.It is literally a hypothetical example. Oh, if I provide a definition, you will say definitions don't prove anything, and if I don't, well, then there is no explanation of what something is; in order for you to be able to refute or not refute the usage of a term, a definition must be provided. This is what an argument is.>Oh my mistake I didn't think this whole hissyfit you're going on was your rebuttal. I was expecting a rebuttal to be a counter to my argument, not you verbal reeeeingYes you can keep claiming everything is a hissy fit without providing any form of argument, I'm sure that'll work. Keep going, think long and hard before you reply.
>>84250946You've said this, and you're wrong. As I said for the 100th time. You keep thinking that because you made your own argument.>run and hideYeah, run and hide.>You keep sayingNo, you keep saying that. I'm saying you haven't.>>84250983It's not incorrect.>>84250983Except you're the incorrect one. In your other post, you said," You claim I claimed anecdotal evidence." Except I didn't, I said anecdotal fallacy. >It isIt's not. Do you think the statement " I like hamburgers " is hypothetical? According to you it fits the definition.
>>84251046I have gotten into the same debate about definitions, for example someone here who had their AI claim humans had no Y-chromosome 50k years ago: https://desuarchive.org/r9k/thread/81417906/#81419024 and they kept posturing the same as you are now, as well as some imbecile here: https://desuarchive.org/r9k/thread/83150322/#q83171697 claiming Kant was not an Enlightenment philosopher, as well as (in the same thread) repeatedly saying that definitions don't prove anything (like a definition of what the Enlightenment is). And many others.You are the same class of desperate imbecile. All of the rest of your posting is desperately trying to posture, not to convince me (as I see and refute every argument with unambiguous definition), but to convince yourself. Go on, keep posting. Every time you do, it is just you defending strictly and unambiguously false statements, and you expecting me to believe I "lost" because you will repeatedly state something false like>Humans didn't have a Y-chromosome 50k years ago.>Kant wasn't an Enlightenment philosopher.>For a counterexample, there has to be an example to counter. There wasn't; you just randomly brought it up as an example.I mean, go ahead? It's more amusement for me.>Do you think the statement " I like hamburgers " is hypothetical? According to you it fits the definition.If you say:>(I like hamburgers, for example)Hypothetical example, to prove:>However, there is no objective reason for me to care if others are harmed or not harmed by hamburgers.Then yes, it functions as a hypothetical example. This is another direct refutation by argument.Also, another direct refutation: The first thing I said was this: >>84249814>No, it isn't. An anecdotal fallacy is where you use experiential evidence from your own life as a way to refute an empirical statement about the world. In this case, I am making the counterargument that something which does not affect you is not something one ought not to care about...
>>84251069>I have gottenI got bad news if two random people from what your trying to imply two different walks of life have told that declarative statement can't be hypothical statements. You have to wonder if your just wrong>I mean, go ahead? It's more amusing for me.Ok, the statement, "I care about FGM," in response to the statement, "Transphobic people say things like, 'I don't hate trans people. I just don't want them crammed in my face. By crammed in their face is trans people just existing." doesn't make sense. What does you care about FGM even in a hypothetical it doesn't make sense as a reply to what I said. It only makes sense if I said the thing you claimed I said and didn't.>>However, there is no objective reason for me to care if others are harmed or not harmed by hamburgers.That wasn't the statement, though. The statement simply was I like hamburgers.
>>84251138https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hypothetical>Based upon a hypothesis; conjectural. >(philosophy) Conditional; contingent upon some hypothesis/antecedent.https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hypothesis#English>An assumption taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation.>The antecedent of a conditional statement.My statement:>I care about, for instance, female genital mutilation despite it having no conceivable bearing on my life in any way. Ought I not, because it doesn't affect me? Or if you say I ought to care because women are being harmed, then why? Why ought I care about something that does not affect me?[For instance] introduces the hypothetical, which is [I care about female genital mutilation, despite it having no conceivable bearing on my life in any way. ought I...]. The "I care about female genital mutilation..." is the antecedent hypothetical example to the hypothetical argument (an argument based on on a hypothetical statement) in which I show that just because something does not affect me (FGM), does not mean I should (and conversely should not) care about it. This is really simple stuff my man.You can keep saying definitions aren't arguments when I've provided a definition (which is a counterargument even when provided without any other rhetoric) and argument, just like the imbecile in pic rel.>>That wasn't the statement, though. The statement simply was I like hamburgers.Yes, and is what I stated just "I don't like FGM" or was it a part of an argument? Think, little man.>Ok, the statement, "I care about FGM," in response to the statement, "Transphobic people say things like, 'I don't hate trans people.No it wasn't. Here is the actual post order, which I quote here. Look at the timestamps:>Post 1: >>84249071>17:36:49>I am not obligated except by your moral dogma to vote...Post 2: >>84249125>17:43:02>This is just like the "I don't want trans in my face " line conservatives say.Post 3: >>84249148>17:46:30Next.
>>84251166 (me)>>84251138Oh wait, I was wrong finally. This time you got me. I misread what you said as the same argument you gave here: >>84250237 Because you made that argument several times.Now I'll explain why it works:>What does you care about FGM even in a hypothetical it doesn't make sense as a reply to what I said. It only makes sense if I said the thing you claimed I said and didn't.Because you claim that in the same way transphobes claim that they don't want transgenderism crammed in their face, I claim I don't want immigrants around. But the argument is actually that in both cases, being affected by something (like transgenders or FGM or immigrants) is not necessary to be able to care.
>>84251184>>84251138Further:You explained what you meant unambiguously here:>>84249698>First off, I'm not using AI. No, my original argument is that you should mind your business and live your life.I.e., that I should mind my business (because immigrants don't affect me) and live my life. However, my argument was that this is not applicable. You said:>>84249125>This is just like the "I don't want trans in my face " line conservatives say. You don't actually live with them. You don't want them in your country. Immigrants, legal and illegal, probably do more to help your country than you do. Also, no one gives a shit about the flag.I.e., that my claim that>the fact remains that I am not obligated except by your moral dogma to vote in accordance with immigration.is refuted because it does not affect me. But the point of my post was that being affected by something is not the necessary prerequisite to care about something, so I reply with this:>You are just giving more moral imperatives that I ought not care about something that doesn't affect me. This is a simple moral dogma. I care about, for instance, female genital mutilation despite it having no conceivable bearing on my life in any way. Ought I not, because it doesn't affect me? Or if you say I ought to care because women are being harmed, then why? Why ought I care about something that does not affect me?Again, in other words, just like transgenders may not affect me, just like immigrants may not affect me, just like female genital mutilation may not affect me, being affected by something is not a prerequisite to determining if I ought or ought not care.This is the function of the hypothetical counterexample to your argument. This is the full, unambiguous refutation of your argument.
>>84251166You linking the definition a 100 times magical makes your statement one. If you ased Google the phrase, I care about FGM." is a hypthetical statement it will say no.> Here's the actual postYeah, your post to someone else. You said the statement,"I don't want to live with immigrants.So I said this>>84249125which again you replied to me saying, I don't understand how you got this...>You are just giving more moral imperatives that I ought not care about something that doesn't affect me. from this>>This is just like the "I don't want trans in my face " line conservatives say. You don't actually live with them. You don't want them in your country. Immigrants, legal and illegal, probably do more to help your country than you do. Also, no one gives a shit about the flag.there not even closef
>>84251240Now you can read this: >>84251232Actually, pic related. This is another direct refutation, this time using the exact tool you mentioned.
>>84251256So your refutation is just going to be an austic response to your being told you wrong? alright I guess I won then.
>>84251270No, I am using direct, factual refutations using the exact tools you mentioned. I refuted it using the dictionary, I refuted it using rational argument, and I refuted it thus, finally. What else did you want? Pic related for more.This is more or less why you need to immediately, with no hesitation spot and correct yourself, because if you do not, you spend a long time defending something that was impossible to defend.This is again a direct refutation of your implication that my reply was specious or empty, by explaining how I refuted it.
>>84251285No, you replied to someone, saying your statement isn't hypothetical, with you just posting the same thing over and over again like a crazy person. Here's a tip: if you are ever in a real debate, don't do that.>See picYou mean the pic that shows I'm right? In order to get Google to agree was your term. You literally change the phrase. You didn't say," I care about FGM for instance." You just said,"I care for FGM."https://share.google/aimode/D0N160KhjFaUwWFFwSee you've been wrong this whole time.
>>84251321>No, you replied to someone, saying your statement isn't hypothetical, with you just posting the same thing over and over again like a crazy person.Point to where I said my statement wasn't hypothetical. In fact, the first time in this thread that the word was mentioned was me saying it was a hypothetical: >>84249911>The actual moral content is irrelevant to the structure of an argument which sets up a hypothetical premise (FGM) and a claim that just because (FGM) does not affect oneself, one ought not care.>You mean the pic that shows I'm right? In order to get Google to agree was your term. You literally change the phrase. You didn't say," I care about FGM for instance." You just said,"I care for FGM."No I didn't, Google has the source quotation, I just asked it the follow up: https://share.google/aimode/5F1dol4yS892Zz2y1You did not give it the entire question, you asked it pic related:>is the phrase I care about FGM hypotheticalWith no context. This is one thing that causes AI users to get raped with hallucinations and falsities, you absolutely must give it the full quotation. Note that nowhere in this post: >>84249148 did "I care abotu FGM" appear. I said, in direct quotation:>You are just giving more moral imperatives that I ought not care about something that doesn't affect me. This is a simple moral dogma. I care about, for instance, female genital mutilation despite it having no conceivable bearing on my life in any way. Ought I not, because it doesn't affect me? Or if you say I ought to care because women are being harmed, then why? Why ought I care about something that does not affect me?You are repeatedly saying things that are factually incorrect. Here's a tip: if you are ever in a real debate, don't do that. Ohh little man, try again.
>>84250827You haven't repaid, white culture isn't being wiped out, peaceful coexistence is possible and most immigrants are law abiding hard working citizens looking for a better life, not the scary monster you take them to be.
>>84251366>>84251321And here is the same tool you requested answering this very question, pic related: https://share.google/aimode/hfYkjFRhue7VAtfgvAgain, I can refute however you like. I have already given you a refutation using a dictionary alone.
>>84251366>AI usersMaybe you should use it so much. >Note that nowhere in this post: >>84249148 did Cool, no one said that post had it, and it wasn't your first post. nice try though. You keep trying those trick
>>84247267Fpbp. When I visit Europe I want to see white people, I want to enjoy their culture. I dont want filthy niggers calling out in Arabic trying to scam me there. Fight back white man.
Hated minorities are a scapegoat for dictators to gather up support. Be it queers, immigrants, shitskins, women, jews, gypsies, the mentally ill. Decaying societies get obsessed with rituals of purification through violence against these groups.
>>84251408A nigger can share and assimilate white culture and become a part of it like most immigrants do anyway. You're just racist
>>84251405Without the rest of the contextThanks for proving my point. You didn't give context. When you first said it and DESU the context you keep saying it means doesn't make any sense.
>>84251407>Maybe you should use it so much.I don't. You specifically said "if you ase [sic] google...">If you ased [sic] Google the phrase, I care about FGM." is a hypthetical statement it will say no.So I obliged. If you invoke a tool, then I will oblige. I did not once use AI, I provided you factual dictionary and encyclopedic refutations and argumentations prior.>>84251427I did. I gave it the exact statement as shown here: https://share.google/aimode/hfYkjFRhue7VAtfgv Which includes:>Is this a hypothetical argument: I care about, for instance, female genital mutilation despite it having no conceivable bearing on my life in any way. Ought I not, because it doesn t affect me? Or if you say I ought to care because women are being harmed, then why? Why ought I care about something that does not affect me?And>Is the claim that the speaker "cares, for instance" about FGM a hypothetical example used for the hypothetical argumentAnd*>If someone asks AI "is the phrase I care about FGM hypothetical" without the rest of the context, will this give an accurate response?I can provide it more context. Anything else? Do you want a different tool? Do you have a dictionary you like? I can refute you any way you want.*Here is a screenshot of me performing a restatement of the same exact question, and link: https://share.google/aimode/p0405evf1rfDooY36 You are repeatedly saying things that are factually incorrect. Here's a tip: if you are ever in a real debate, don't do that. Just aren't very bright are ya? Keep going.
>>84251421we're getting to the point where there are simply too many of them, and they are not assimilating into the nation's culture anymore. This is why we're told "multiculturalism" is a good thing now. that's what that means. It means your country turning into a different country.
>>84251374Generations of living in modern countries, with all of the technology and benefits that come with it, is their repayment.That and the actual money that gets given to them, often so they can live without working.
>>84251580>Generations of living in modern countries, with all of the technology and benefits that come with it, is their repayment.Lmao what a cheap copout. Europe literally build their countries on stolen wealth from other nations, and keeps preventing said nations from developing further. Immigrants have an intrinsically human right to travel to better places to live and you will have to deal with that, you can't stop the tides of time. Globalization is here to stay.
>>84251570>they are not assimilating into the nation's culture anymore.They literally are. Most of them. Your whole xenophobia, like all prejudices, rely on picking the outliers, the exceptions, and blaming the whole group for the crimes of the few.
>>84251649>Immigrants have an intrinsically human rightCan you point to where it is?
>>84251658No they arent you fucking retard. Go live in their ghetto neighbourhood you delusional cumskin.
>>84251685>the house negro is defending racists againLmao pathetic.>>84251679Having access to western living standards is a basic human right.Whites not wanting to see le hecking brownpipo is not.
>>84251868>Having access to western living standards is a basic human right.Can you point to where this human right is?
>>84247205Just went on vacation. In every airport immigrants abused the trolleys for disabled people. In every airport immigrants used wheelchairs to get priority boarding on planes, then walked off without assistance. I have no idea why we put up with this.
>>84247205yes I am sure crimes randomly went up to the point some nations in Europe no longer classify criminals by ethnicity because of some other unknown factor, importation of blacks and browns totally had nothing to do with it
>>84247895>>84247914>>84248083>>84248377>>84248581>>84248678Why are you guys continuing the discussion when i already bodied it? Anti immigration niggas stay jaded by modernity.Embrace humanity and natureReject hatred and capitalism
>>84254311You did not form any argument outside of moral imperatives.
>>84254322Because that's what it boils down to. Something is only bad if it is immoralNiggas who keep talking bout economy or nationalism are coping, these concepts are only used as devices to continue the destructive expansion of capitalism/techno feudalism.
>>84254363>Because that's what it boils down to. Something is only bad if it is immoralWhat you are saying is>Please do this because... my tummy hurts if you don't!!This is not an argument. A moral imperative to do something is strictly not an argument when the person you are providing imperatives to does not share the values which are maximized by the imperatives. For example, you said:>Niggas who keep talking bout economy or nationalism are coping, these concepts are only used as devices to continue the destructive expansion of capitalism/techno feudalism.But >>84248556>NTA but remember to deconstruct the terms he uses when he tries to say something like>Well, immigration can increase GDP and...>In what way and for whom? [...] an increase in per capita GDP means nothing from the perspective of a component of that society which has been negatively affected socioculturally by migration.Is strictly anti-materialist; it does not actually matter if the GDP is harmed or not harmed by immigration. Your response was:>>84248678>Im not planning to continue. I have said enough I believe, and this website isnt very fond of people who oppose them.Disengagement.>Nor do they really care about the nuances within the beneficiaries and the marginalised.Moral plea (you ought care about the marginalised).>Immigration politics for them is the same as identity politics for libs and leftists.Useless statement.>Its sensitive for them.Useless statement.>Either they come to the conclusion that diversity, change, life and death is what our earth is made for, or they die never knowing the beautiful juxtaposition of the world we call home.The structure is, either (enjoy my moral values based on my subjective natural law) or (you don't appreciate my moral values).Useless.
>>84254404This is a massive misreading of it all, which is why I decided to refrained from debating. In reality discussion like this belong in /pol/, and again people would disagree with me because this site is co opted by people who benefit from tribalism. You dont agree with my moral pleas because your beliefs are most likely jaded by modernity. I didnt bring up any crazy things, just thay we should protect human dignity, nature, show empathy and walk a mile in someone else's shoes. The fact that you disagree with this is quite weird. Then again it ties back to what I said, people who disagree are more than likely jaded my modernity, as the principled that I mentioned are well established throughout the world and human history.
>>84254461>Are you man enough to go EXTINCT? Tribalism bad. Just be a cog in the jewish international capital system I claim I'm against but support lockstep every step of the way. This is true enlightenment.
>>84254461There is not one misreading. Go ahead and explain where, for instance, you admit your argument is literally moral pleas:>You dont agree with my moral pleas because your beliefs are most likely jaded by modernity.The structure of this statement is>you don't agree with my moral pleas because your beliefs are different.Okay? This is tautologically correct; I do not agree because I do not agree.>I didnt bring up any crazy things, just thay we should protect human dignity, nature, show empathy and walk a mile in someone else's shoes.Moral imperatives again. This has exactly the same moral weight as "show empathy for all the white racists who feel bad when they see..." of course you do not care, because you do not consider a minor perturbation of a racist's feelings to have any moral value, and thus the imperative is just "do it because I think it should be."You are quite literally repeating again and again "do it because I like it," or "do it because it's good," or "do it because it makes me happy (good thing happens)." My friend, what is the objective goodness and where? A moral plea is not an argument. You did not refute or settle anything, and if you were smart you would end it at:>I have morals and you have yours. There is nothing to be said unfortunately.
all this arguing is frivolouslet any half sentient kumbaya hylic envision a future where all the races of the world will shake hands and coexist after they have all relocated to the northwestern hemisphereall dreams end and so will this postmodern nightmarethe extinction of niggers and jeets at the hands of this world is only a matter of time, if the white man doesn't do it the chink will
>>84254311Tribalism is human nature though. No one wants to be invaded, dispossessed and made extinct in their own territory. On that topic, open borders for Israel and (You)
>>84254518Rape, murder, etc. are also natural and occurred throughout history, in tribal societies, etc., any argument to nature is going to fail for OP because it will get deconstructed to hell and back.
>>84254461>which is why I decided to refrained from debatingnta but you have been debating logical fallacies and the meaning of "hypothesis" and shit like that, as opposed to facts and statistics about immigrationI mean, the actual debate is pretty straightforward, 4 plain questions really. Do we accept the huge number of low income unskilled immigrants when it is objectively a disadvantage to citizens? Do we have some sort of moral obligation to? Why has the establishment basically lied about the fact it places a strain on social services and low income wages? Because of paranoia about racism?
>>84254501Alright, then we end it there is guess. Sadly. I feel like the world is too big and beautiful for hatred found in this thread but eh. Good thing knowing that most thay share this kind of sentiment restrict it to the internet and not the real world.>>84254549The actual debate is centered around economics, capitalism and other modern ideas that I hate. Im suggesting a different paradigm than most itt, so obviously my answers are going to be shot down. To me, this is the peaceful way of life, to others im just a Kumbaya hylic like >>84254514 suggests.
>>84251868They can build a western society in their shithole since they are so capable and equal to the white man. Faggot.
>>84254596Now that this is acknowledged, I will just address the final point:>The actual debate is centered around economics, capitalism and other modern ideas that I hateAnd the "racists" also denied the desire for a growth in GDP or economics:>>84248704>To assert that one MUST import different people simply because... because... "economy" or "diversity," is a plain moral imperative but it is up to the individual's own desires what they ultimately desire.Whether immigrants raise or lower the economy or increase or decrease the thriving of the nation is irrelevant because both are "is" statements that do not prove an "ought." Both rely on an implied moral value which is not shared. The argument in the quoted post is opposed to using economics (whether it harms or benefits the economy) to justify whether immigration should or should not be supported. If your argument is that you>don't care about GDP, do GOOD THING (support immigration) anywayit is equivalent to:>I don't care about GDP, do GOOD THING (oppose immigration) anyway.It contains all of the equivalencies:>I don't care about capitalism, do GOOD THING (oppose capitalism) anyway.>I don't care about economics, do GOOD THING (oppose immigration) anyway.>I don't care about "human rights", do GOOD THING (oppose transgenders) anyway.The only thing this thread settled was that the two sides have equally rational (yes, even yours is equally rational, although I can make this about ideological critique if you wanted) but incompatible views.
>>84254596there is no debate to be hadImmigration as it exists today is a thing of our hellish reality solely because of what you "hate" ,capitalism, yet you are here praising the importation of hopeless and helpless niggers whom before the arrival of the non-nigger upon their land had no alphabet to write with, not even the concept of numeralsI do not hold hate for the nigger, I do not blame the nigger the same ways I don't blame a stray dog if it bites me when I get too close to it but it is you retarded, easily manipulated flesh automatons with barely any sentience, possibly annihilated through drug use, whom see the vaguely humanoid stature of the african creature, assign humanity to it and decide it is a moral good to import the nigger here amongst humanity outside of its natural habitatfor you I hold nothing but hate and contempt have you pondered upon it at all or will you forever remain the ignorant ungifted mutt of chance, produced by the modern commercialization of humans
>>84247205truth nukespeak your facts anon
Mods should stop treating /r9k/ as a landfill, it isn'tI have seen crap coming here from soc, fit, v, a, etc.. but only once I have seen a thread being moved to socYou can, and should move stuff to lgbt, pol and trash when it dserves to. This shit for example, it's pol, so move it there.
