“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

[Kramodlog]

But there is evidence to support the intake of certain groups have risen crime and welfare.

Certain groups. Nice code word

Evidence? Like what? The one I have shows that first generation immigrants commit less crimes than the local population in the US. Second generation are just corrupt by USian culture and become as violent and criminally inclined.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ld-trump-is-wrong-about-immigrants-and-crime/

 

[Ovinomancer]

It isn't a tone argument. It has nothing to do with them being mean, or having a particular tone. It has to do with how it was rhetorical weak sauce (which, I see, you don't deny).

We all have better things to do with our time than deal with strawmen. You have better things to do than put them up, I have better things to do than knock them down, and anyone else reading has better things to do than watch a series of such interactions. Folks should go and, I dunno, maybe go play D&D or something, rather than read this.

Let's be honest. It isn't like I'm going to change your mind. And, with arguments like that, you certainly aren't going to change mine. No major issues of the day will be resolved by the two of us arguing on a smallish website. And, this far in, we aren't going to inform or influence anyone - the thread's way too long for it to have any new readers, and anyone sticking around this far has probably already been influenced as much as they are apt to be by our words.

So, the only reason to continue is because it is *entertaining*. And, to be honest, your arguments are not entertaining. I'm bored. I've been reading for quite a while now, and you're not saying anything I haven't heard many times before. You are not giving cites or references often at all, much less to stuff I haven't seen that I might learn from. Once the discussion goes to the strawman stage, it is running down to having no real content. It is of no value unless you happen to enjoy conflict for the sake of conflict.

Which I don't. If you do, I hope you find someone else of like minds to butt heads with.

You chose to dismiss my entire post at the point in which you accuse me of inventing a strawman. That consisted of a fraction of the post, the rest talking about a different thing altogether. I didn't waste time on denying anything because you've already shown willingness to ignore the remainder based on your interpretation of that, so why bother? That part wasn't the big beef of my post to begin with, and was a mildly entertaining side argument about your willingness to engage in things you chastise others for routinely.

But the point is that you failed to address anything of my main point, on the failure of those favoring admitting the refugees to do anything but insult and demean those that disagree with them. You've chosen to hide behind an argument about a different point, a side discussion, for whatever reason, but that doesn't make it go away. If you insist on following a path that leads you to think that those that disagree with your are worthy of your disdain and insult rather than your sincere efforts to acknowledge and address their valid points (I'm talking about that percentage you can never reach, but the big chunk in the middle that could be persuaded if you chose a rhetoric other than insults), then you should not be surprised when the situation doesn't get better and your favored path fails in large measure.

Seriously, insulting people just makes them less likely to agree with you, even if they might otherwise. The biggest outcome of insulting people concerned about security risks from taking in the refugees isn't more people agreeing with you, it's more people voting Republican.

 

[Umbran]

Not all do. But there is evidence to support the intake of certain groups have risen crime and welfare.

Well, we have to be careful about how we look at that. Specifically, an absolute rise in the instances of crime is expected with any population growth. More people means more crime.

The real question is not the absolute, but the relative - is the per-capita rate of criminal action for these people higher than that of citizens on the same economic level as they are? If not, then the issue isn't about immigration at all, but may be more about income inequality.

 

[Umbran]

You chose to dismiss my entire post at the point in which you accuse me of inventing a strawman.

Yep. Note that I didn't say it was intentional. It is a thing on the internet - a creep towards restating the opponents position just slightly more extreme than they actually are, to the point of creating strawmen.

I did not so much dismiss the rest, as ignore it. The strawman was the thing that twigged me to the fact that the discussion was no longer useful, and so I stopped.

That consisted of a fraction of the post, the rest talking about a different thing altogether.

So? It isn't like there's some onus on anyone to address the entirety of what you write.

... and was a mildly entertaining side argument about your willingness to engage in things you chastise others for routinely.

Ah, so you were trying to make the discussion in part about *me*, rather than about my points? You start on the ad hominem road, and when I recognize it and disengage, you... object? Claim it as a bit of superiority on your part or your position, or something? I see no point here worth the time you took to write it.

Seriously, insulting people just makes them less likely to agree with you, even if they might otherwise.

There was no insult to your person. There was critique of your rhetorical form and content.

I have never thought there was a significant chance of getting you to agree with me, and such was never one of my goals. I am not here to convince anyone, I just like discussion. When it was clear the discussion was no longer good, I stopped. Very simple, really.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yep. Note that I didn't say it was intentional. It is a thing on the internet - a creep towards restating the opponents position just slightly more extreme than they actually are, to the point of creating strawmen.

I did not so much dismiss the rest, as ignore it. The strawman was the thing that twigged me to the fact that the discussion was no longer useful, and so I stopped.



So? It isn't like there's some onus on anyone to address the entirety of what you write.



Ah, so you were trying to make the discussion in part about *me*, rather than about my points? You start on the ad hominem road, and when I recognize it and disengage, you... object? Claim it as a bit of superiority on your part or your position, or something? I see no point here worth the time you took to write it.



There was no insult to your person. There was critique of your rhetorical form and content.

I have never thought there was a significant chance of getting you to agree with me, and such was never one of my goals. I am not here to convince anyone, I just like discussion. When it was clear the discussion was no longer good, I stopped. Very simple, really.

It's a general you. I did not feel personally insulted, but if you can't see in insult in your (specific this time) choice of describing reasonable and addressable fears over security as irrational, I'm not sure we're speaking the same language.

 

[megamania]

Fine. You guys are smarter than me. Run for president and fix things rather than just say what is wrong. Fix them.


Politics should remain in Circus.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Fine. You guys are smarter than me. Run for president and fix things rather than just say what is wrong. Fix them.


Politics should remain in Circus.

That opinion has been previously stated. I'm on record saying that discussion of politics here cannot have any positive outcome. Given that it's a handful of people who join these discussions, mostly interested in trolling and mostly from a single viewpoint, I'd say that the utility is negligible.

 

[megamania]

I am sorry that my comment seems..... strong and defensive but this is politics. Beliefs and values are as much from experience and beliefs as numbers. Politics is about opinions. There is no right and wrong. It is about perspectives. Not everyone sees things the same way.

Politics should though, remain in Circus.

 

[billd91]

I am sorry that my comment seems..... strong and defensive but this is politics. Beliefs and values are as much from experience and beliefs as numbers. Politics is about opinions. There is no right and wrong. It is about perspectives. Not everyone sees things the same way.

Politics do involve competing opinions, but the formation of competent public policy depends on numbers. And, in some instances, those must be used to cut through misconceptions derived from anecdotal experiences.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Politics do involve competing opinions, but the formation of competent public policy depends on numbers. And, in some instances, those must be used to cut through misconceptions derived from anecdotal experiences.

Ha! As if the masses are actually a good tool to ferret out misconceptions or not act on anecdotal experience.