Fact: Most immigrants DO assimilate. It takes time.
Fact: Refugees are not the same as immigrants.
Fact: Majority of those fleeing Syria are women and children.
Fact: You are afraid of people who are different.
Would you still teach in W.Europe?
-
Thames Pirate
- Posts: 1151
- Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:06 am
Discussion
@Thames Pirate
You do not know what facts are. Those are claims, labeling them as facts does not make them any more valid.
1) While I would agree that most immigrants do assimilate, over time is a highly conditional claim. Whats the reasonable amount of time for assimilation, and do you have evidence to support that. Even if you do, that simply makes the claim a supported one, its still not a fact.
2) Whats the differential definition? Its not a fact when you operationally define the factors. You can define refugee one way, and define immigrant another and then claim its a fact their different, but only because you defined them differently. You can not fiat a fact when the claim is made in a bubble.
Theres a valid argument that all refugees are immigrants but not all immigrants are refugees.
3) Maybe the majority of those fleeing Syria are women and children. Given that woman generally outnumber men in global populations and when you add Children to that equation, its likely true, and a fact, but its a trivial conclusion, water is also wet, and if you expand your definitions to include a majority, all you have as an argument is definition by fiat.
4) Thats so far away from a fact as to clearly indicate you dont know what facts are. This is your opinion, and its a ad hominem argument at that. It could be a valid ad hominem argument if you had evidence of bias, etc. but you dont, youre reacting to a position by claiming superior preference.
@OzGrad
What is your source for the claim that the primary function of government is to keep citizens safe? I dont dispute that its a component of government, but perhaps not THE primary one?
Isnt there an adaptation and assimilation period for new citizens to adapt to a new society and culture? If such a period of time exists and is valid would hostility not be an emotion that could be exhibited? Many of these new citizens arent just immigrants they are closer to refugees.
I dont find the statement valid that healthy young men should be fighting for their own country. Why? Because it sounds good and nationalistic and patriotic. I have citizenship in three countries and I would never fight for any of them.
Well yes immigrants do target generous welfare states. Wouldnt you in their position? It would on first appearances be counter productive to target poor or frugal welfare states.
You do not know what facts are. Those are claims, labeling them as facts does not make them any more valid.
1) While I would agree that most immigrants do assimilate, over time is a highly conditional claim. Whats the reasonable amount of time for assimilation, and do you have evidence to support that. Even if you do, that simply makes the claim a supported one, its still not a fact.
2) Whats the differential definition? Its not a fact when you operationally define the factors. You can define refugee one way, and define immigrant another and then claim its a fact their different, but only because you defined them differently. You can not fiat a fact when the claim is made in a bubble.
Theres a valid argument that all refugees are immigrants but not all immigrants are refugees.
3) Maybe the majority of those fleeing Syria are women and children. Given that woman generally outnumber men in global populations and when you add Children to that equation, its likely true, and a fact, but its a trivial conclusion, water is also wet, and if you expand your definitions to include a majority, all you have as an argument is definition by fiat.
4) Thats so far away from a fact as to clearly indicate you dont know what facts are. This is your opinion, and its a ad hominem argument at that. It could be a valid ad hominem argument if you had evidence of bias, etc. but you dont, youre reacting to a position by claiming superior preference.
@OzGrad
What is your source for the claim that the primary function of government is to keep citizens safe? I dont dispute that its a component of government, but perhaps not THE primary one?
Isnt there an adaptation and assimilation period for new citizens to adapt to a new society and culture? If such a period of time exists and is valid would hostility not be an emotion that could be exhibited? Many of these new citizens arent just immigrants they are closer to refugees.
I dont find the statement valid that healthy young men should be fighting for their own country. Why? Because it sounds good and nationalistic and patriotic. I have citizenship in three countries and I would never fight for any of them.
Well yes immigrants do target generous welfare states. Wouldnt you in their position? It would on first appearances be counter productive to target poor or frugal welfare states.
Re: Would you still teach in W.Europe?
"You cannot fiat a fact..."
"...definition by fiat."
Dave, you're using the word "fiat" so often in your replies, that I'm beginning to wonder if you drive one. Which would be heartening news about your financial circumstances given your present state of "resting" as they say in the acting profession.
I do like how you have crazes on words and phrases. "Water is wet" is another, though my favorite was always "Post Scriptum". In the meantime, can I just advise you that "fiat" is a noun; you can't use it as a verb as in "you cannot fiat a fact."
You're very keen on "facts" in this latest retort. I suppose that's only fitting, given your oft-declared affinity for data. Why is it that, when I ask you for data to back up your more extravagant claims, you always ignore me?
"...definition by fiat."
Dave, you're using the word "fiat" so often in your replies, that I'm beginning to wonder if you drive one. Which would be heartening news about your financial circumstances given your present state of "resting" as they say in the acting profession.
I do like how you have crazes on words and phrases. "Water is wet" is another, though my favorite was always "Post Scriptum". In the meantime, can I just advise you that "fiat" is a noun; you can't use it as a verb as in "you cannot fiat a fact."
You're very keen on "facts" in this latest retort. I suppose that's only fitting, given your oft-declared affinity for data. Why is it that, when I ask you for data to back up your more extravagant claims, you always ignore me?
Re: Would you still teach in W.Europe?
And once again....HIJACKED.
-
Thames Pirate
- Posts: 1151
- Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:06 am
Re: Would you still teach in W.Europe?
Fact according to Merriam Webster:
: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
: a true piece of information
1) There ARE studies on this, but one really need only look at many societies. Heck, we are ITs, right? We should be able to see where, after a few years, we assimilate at least to a reasonable degree, and our children even more so, especially when they are young. The world is one with a history of movements of people. Most people assimilate within a generation or two, many much faster, some a bit slower.
2) Well, there are dictionary definitions, but more relevant is the fact that the UN defines them differently. So do the countries admitting them. Since the thread is about teaching in WE and the current refugee crisis, those are reasonable sources for the definitions. Therefore it is true.
3) The UNHCR has data on this as well. It's a fact.
4) It actually happened that Oz expressed his/her fear of people who were different. Right here in the thread! So yes, it's a fact.
: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
: a true piece of information
1) There ARE studies on this, but one really need only look at many societies. Heck, we are ITs, right? We should be able to see where, after a few years, we assimilate at least to a reasonable degree, and our children even more so, especially when they are young. The world is one with a history of movements of people. Most people assimilate within a generation or two, many much faster, some a bit slower.
2) Well, there are dictionary definitions, but more relevant is the fact that the UN defines them differently. So do the countries admitting them. Since the thread is about teaching in WE and the current refugee crisis, those are reasonable sources for the definitions. Therefore it is true.
3) The UNHCR has data on this as well. It's a fact.
4) It actually happened that Oz expressed his/her fear of people who were different. Right here in the thread! So yes, it's a fact.
Reply
Fiat can be used as a verb, I know this because i just did it.
@Thames Pirate
Studies do not make conclusions fact. When you have evidential support for a claim you have a theory. That doesnt make it a fact. Anecdotal and experiential data are just that data, they are not interchangeable with facts.
Reasonable does not equal true, again your assumptions can not be fiated, not are your claims self authenticating when they rely on the acceptance of those assumptions. The definitions are reasonable to YOU, they are not naturally or empirically true.
Data by and itself does not equal fact, its a theory, a theory with support, but theories arent facts.
No you inferred and interpreted those statements based on your perceptions and paradigm, those are conclusions, they are not facts.
You still dont know what a fact is.
@Thames Pirate
Studies do not make conclusions fact. When you have evidential support for a claim you have a theory. That doesnt make it a fact. Anecdotal and experiential data are just that data, they are not interchangeable with facts.
Reasonable does not equal true, again your assumptions can not be fiated, not are your claims self authenticating when they rely on the acceptance of those assumptions. The definitions are reasonable to YOU, they are not naturally or empirically true.
Data by and itself does not equal fact, its a theory, a theory with support, but theories arent facts.
No you inferred and interpreted those statements based on your perceptions and paradigm, those are conclusions, they are not facts.
You still dont know what a fact is.
-
Thames Pirate
- Posts: 1151
- Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:06 am
Re: Would you still teach in W.Europe?
Sociological facts are not the same as scientific facts.
Reply
@Thames Pirate
Thats your position that their are different levels of facts? Do you have support for this claim?
No, you dont because facts are facts. Truth is not malleable, an observation and subsequent claim/conclusion either represents an event or phenomenon or it doesnt. There is no difference between "scientific" facts and "sociological" facts because social science is still science.
Thats your position that their are different levels of facts? Do you have support for this claim?
No, you dont because facts are facts. Truth is not malleable, an observation and subsequent claim/conclusion either represents an event or phenomenon or it doesnt. There is no difference between "scientific" facts and "sociological" facts because social science is still science.
-
Thames Pirate
- Posts: 1151
- Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:06 am
Re: Would you still teach in W.Europe?
No, not my position. It's the position of the academic community. You are wanting to apply the scientific method to social sciences, and that isn't how the social sciences work.
Your definition of facts is apparently that "facts are facts." I provided a definition that was not tautological.
My claims are based on things that truly exist or happened/true pieces of information.
But sure, argue the semantics if it makes you happy.
Your definition of facts is apparently that "facts are facts." I provided a definition that was not tautological.
My claims are based on things that truly exist or happened/true pieces of information.
But sure, argue the semantics if it makes you happy.
Re: Would you still teach in W.Europe?
So, let me get this straight, according to Thames Pirate 'logic' fear of anyone different is xenophobic.
You fear ISIS?
Yes, congratulations you are now xenophobic :)
To put my final 'opinion' in a nutshell, I would like a Western Europe to have less fear and terrorist attacks from recent immigrants or children of such. I would reduce immigration from certain regions/countries.
Your position, as I see it, appears to be that we now must accept the threat of terrorist attacks as part of our everyday lives. And if you dare question the 'logic' of this you will be labelled xenophobic or racist.
I would gladly accept any name/insult you care to label me with if it resulted in a safer, less fearful Western Europe.
You fear ISIS?
Yes, congratulations you are now xenophobic :)
To put my final 'opinion' in a nutshell, I would like a Western Europe to have less fear and terrorist attacks from recent immigrants or children of such. I would reduce immigration from certain regions/countries.
Your position, as I see it, appears to be that we now must accept the threat of terrorist attacks as part of our everyday lives. And if you dare question the 'logic' of this you will be labelled xenophobic or racist.
I would gladly accept any name/insult you care to label me with if it resulted in a safer, less fearful Western Europe.
Re: Would you still teach in W.Europe?
I am not xenophobic. If I was I wouldn't be working overseas, I wouldn't have a wife from a different country/race, and nor would I have spent almost a decade in the ME. My beef is not with legitimate refugees or economic migrants (I am one myself I suppose), but with the genuine and growing threat of nihilists intent on destroying our ways of life and values under the cover of their chosen religion.
The undeniable fact is Merkel's open-door policy to help Syrian refugees (admirable but clearly misguided) has exposed western Europe to infiltration by numerous jihadist groups and individuals, to say nothing of the influx of economic migrants from other areas posing as refugees. These are supported by migrants already in the EU who despise our way of life and values and seek its destruction.
Increased attacks on women throughout Europe in the months since the Syrian migrant explosion cannot be ignored nor can the self-styled 'religious watchdogs' who have attempted to impose shariah laws on their European hosts. The situation in Sweden has been increasingly worsening with an alarming increase in sex attacks on women and young girls - which the press are gagged from reporting on.
The jihadists/extremists' own websites and propaganda speak for themselves - exploit the welfare systems and liberal rights of the host nation, arbrogating those very freedoms and then take increasing control. For once i am in agreement with Putin -
"Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Russia, to work and eat in Russia, should speak Russian, and should respect the Russian laws. If they prefer Sharia Law, and live the life of Muslims then we advise them to go to those places where that's the state law. Russia does not need Muslim minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell 'discrimination'. We will not tolerate disrespect of our Russian culture."
The undeniable fact is Merkel's open-door policy to help Syrian refugees (admirable but clearly misguided) has exposed western Europe to infiltration by numerous jihadist groups and individuals, to say nothing of the influx of economic migrants from other areas posing as refugees. These are supported by migrants already in the EU who despise our way of life and values and seek its destruction.
Increased attacks on women throughout Europe in the months since the Syrian migrant explosion cannot be ignored nor can the self-styled 'religious watchdogs' who have attempted to impose shariah laws on their European hosts. The situation in Sweden has been increasingly worsening with an alarming increase in sex attacks on women and young girls - which the press are gagged from reporting on.
The jihadists/extremists' own websites and propaganda speak for themselves - exploit the welfare systems and liberal rights of the host nation, arbrogating those very freedoms and then take increasing control. For once i am in agreement with Putin -
"Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Russia, to work and eat in Russia, should speak Russian, and should respect the Russian laws. If they prefer Sharia Law, and live the life of Muslims then we advise them to go to those places where that's the state law. Russia does not need Muslim minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell 'discrimination'. We will not tolerate disrespect of our Russian culture."
Re: Would you still teach in W.Europe?
@ParanoiaGuy Dave, Dave it's only data that counts. You are much more likely to be shot by a policeman in the States than shot (or bombed) by a terrorist in Western Europe. Fourteen times more. Three times more citizens were killed by the cops in your home state of Texas than terrorists killed citizens in the whole of WE. In fact, in 2015, US police killed more citizens by taser than terrorists killed in WE by bullet or bomb.
Reply
@walter
You still dont know what you think you know. Yes only data matters. I am not more likely to be shot by LEOs than terrorists. I have control to some extent to regulate my confrontations with LEOs. I have no control over what terrorists will do thats why terror works.
You still dont know what you think you know. Yes only data matters. I am not more likely to be shot by LEOs than terrorists. I have control to some extent to regulate my confrontations with LEOs. I have no control over what terrorists will do thats why terror works.