Tree said:You realize that you look a tit when you play with a name like a high school bully?
This is just projection on your part. You get the respect you deserve.
Typical nonsensical non-sequitur from the Tree chap.
Projection? Because I was playing with your name like a tit? Nice try tossing out irrelevant phrases again though - more hand waving is always fun.
I do get the respect I deserve, as do you - in your case, your behavior here engenders very little at all.
Of course, your disrespect towards me is perfectly acceptable to me, because it serves to highlight what I've noted - your inability to engage in reasoned discourse. Somehow, somewhere, somewhy... you think that you're scoring points while acting like a child!
Making half-assed jokes mocking my name... a name which clearly isn't even actually my name.... achieves what, exactly? Obviously, it doesn't phase me in the slightest - I actively enjoy seeing you delegitimize the consequent post by acting like a tit at the start of it. All it does is open a large window onto the mind of the person behaving like that.
But as I keep saying to you: please do go on! Feel free to start your next reply pretending that you're still someone to be taken seriously while engaging in adolescent bullying.
Tree said:Nice mantra, how about garnering a fucking clue?
Firstly, your claim is that Muslims will become the dominant population in a European country in the near future.
So wheres your source for that claim, because that Pew Research doesn't support your contention because, as was pretty fucking clear to anyone, it had 3 different models, and the most extreme version - the one which entails continuing conflicts in the Middle East causing millions of people to flee their homes and go to Europe for succor - arrived at 14% population of Europe being Muslims by the year 2050.
By near future I didn't mean by 2050, so there's no contradiction there. Since humans have been around for very long time relatively speaking, even a few centuries could accurately be described as near future.
Oh THAT very near future - the distant one?
Still fucking bollocks, isn't it, Tree? :lol:
Tree said:No contradiction between:
a. Muslims will be 14-11% in 2050. (Again this is the average, Sweden is projected as 20-30% while others will remain in the low single digits.)
b. Muslims will be over 50% in at least some European countries where they were previously a small minority at some point after 2050.
Yeah, citation for that latter one?
No?
Well, there goes your fantastically deluded fear-mongering, doesn't it?
Tree said:So even the most extreme model, the one least likely to be anything reflective of the actual affairs, still contradicts your asinine assertion.
First, I NEVER said the worst case scenario of 14% will happen, but it's also not something I can just dismiss when the stakes are high.
Well, firstly, I never said you said that the worst case scenario will happen, nice evasion though!
Instead, what I pointed out was that your 'worst case scenario', which entails 30 more years of devastating warfare and economic catastrophe continuing at a pace that already peaked nearly 2 years ago, still wouldn't provide a jot of support for your claim.
Remember? Your claim, you're supposedly supporting it. The research you offering nominally to support your claim clearly does nothing of the sort.
Further, I think it's highly doubtful you even understand the survey data or the methodology underlying it. Your comments seem blithely unaware of a vast swathe of population factors, and you seem not the slightest bit interested in honestly representing factual reality because you're trying to sell us a stupid idea based on xenophobic fear-mongering.
No one's buying.
Tree said:The 11% or slightly over is probably more likely, but that's more than double from what it is now and roughly triple from what it was before 2010.
No, it's not.
Tree said:Not that hard to extrapolate based on this graph that IF there is no paradigm shift, meaning...
- no limiting of immigration
- no change to the paradigm of welcoming Islam in Europe, the elites pretending it's peaceful, tolerant and suppressing criticism with accusations of racism or hate speech laws, all the post 9/11 appeasement and pandering we're used to
- no increase in the fertility of non-Muslims
- no unexpected event like a mass apostasy of Muslims
Come on lad, spell out your claim so it can be exposed for wet-wankery.
You want to pretend that the conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa which caused so many people to flee their homes looking for aid and safety will continue at this pace (actually, at a pace past which we've already peaked) for the next 30 years!
And even then, even if that were to happen, and even if every single individual person who had ethnic ancestry in a Muslim-dominant nation were to be counted as 'Muslim' for the sake of comparison, we'd still not get ANYWHERE near to a Muslim dominant European nation.
Please do feel free to keep waving your hands to avoid acknowledging that your claim is shown to be unsupported, and that the data which you nominally cited in support of your claim does not, in fact, provide so much as a jot of support even given every leniency imaginable.
Tree said:...the Muslim population will continue to grow and eventually become a majority at some point after 2050 in some countries.
Go learn how biological populations work.
Tree said:Regardless, even in this wildest possible outcome, we still never arrive at Muslims becoming the dominant population in Europe,
Listen to yourself you... you're talking crap again.
Doesn't happen in 2050 or before = never happens?
Firstly, stop whining about having your claim destroyed. It was you who pretended that Muslims would become the dominant group of a European nation IN THE NEAR FUTURE - if you can't support that, do feel free to scrape back some decency by admitting your error instead of trying to distort reality with strawmanning to make it my mistake.
I told you the fucking reason already - you know, MY REASON - not the one you make up for me, and let's be clear - given our relative competencies, I'd far rather be responsible for making my own points rather than letting you tell me what my position is.
The reason is that, even in your wildest wet fantasy, you don't turn 40 million people into 700+ million people in any short time frame, not to mention the vast number of factors you're wholly neglecting to peddle your fear narrative.
Tree said:not least because it would take half the fucking world's population of Muslims to up home and move to Europe you total fucking numpty.
A population expert who doesn't realize population numbers don't stay constant.
Numpty - clearly, my post indicates that I think that population numbers stay constant. You really must be used to talking to morons if you think this distraction will work on any of the readers here.
Tree said:Furthermore, you don't know what you're talking about since I'm talking about some European countries.
Typical Treeism - I don't know what I am talking about because you're busy generating ad hoc bullshit.
Tree said:For a small country like Sweden with a roughly 9.4 million non-Muslim population it would only take over 9.4 million Muslims.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
So clueless, so funny.
Go on Tree, spell it out. How, pray tell, does this happen in your febrile mind.
Also... Sweden.... you've become a parody, Tree! :lol:
Tree said:
:lol:
The ancient mantra of the xenophobe.
Regardless, let's educate Tree so that he stops vacuously banging the hate-drum and starts appreciating reality.
In that reality, you know - the one we all share - there's been an indisputable global shift in fertility rates, meaning the rate at which populations are increasing. Over the last several decades, nearly all nations around the world have seen their fertility rates decline (yes, that includes Muslim nations too), In part, this is an artifact of prior decades when fertility rates were exorbitantly high (in large part due to the Green Revolution), but the decline also repeatedly linked through numerous independent studies to several factors: lower infant mortality rates, access to education - particularly including women, sociopolitical scenarios where women have a say over child raising, and availability and acceptance of the use of condoms and other contraceptives.
The rate at which fertility is declining is also directly linked to the wealth of that nation, with the wealthiest nations comprised of citizens who could raise 1 or 2 children and expect them to reach adulthood, whose daughters had greater opportunities for career prospects and delayed pregnancy, and where fewer ideological restrictions against contraceptives were present.
It might seem obvious to say that the fastest decline was seen in what we have been bandying about as 'the West', which in decades past was more fashionably called 'the developed world', but the same force is being seen even in nation states in Africa which have only the most rudimentary elements of the factors causing this shift.
However, and here's the kicker - it's not just the ethnic-national citizens of a nation which experience this trend, but also its immigrants. You see, it's not tied explicitly to ideology, but rather to wealth, to prospects, and to freedoms. How best to illustrate this? Well, how about the fact that the fastest decline in fertility rates has not actually been seen in the West, but rather in the Muslim world?
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/-fertility-decline-in-the-muslim-world-a-veritable-seachange-still-curiously-unnoticed_102606337292.pdf
https://www.hoover.org/research/fertility-decline-muslim-world
Since the overwhelming majority of today’s Muslims live in Muslim-majority countries, and since those same countries are typically overwhelmingly Muslim (by the Pew study’s estimate, 43 of those 49 countries and places are over two-thirds Muslim, 40 of them over 90 percent Muslim), we can use national-level data on fertility for Muslim-majority countries as a fairly serviceable proxy for examining changes in fertility patterns for the Muslim world community. For our purposes, the advantage here is that a number of authoritative institutions — most importantly, the United Nations Population Division (unpd) and the United States Census Bureau (uscb) — regularly estimate and project population trends for all the countries in the world.
The unpd provides estimates and projections for period “total fertility rates” (births per woman per lifetime) for over 190 countries and territories across the planet for both the late 1970s and the 2005 to 2010 period. Using these data, we can appraise the magnitude of fertility declines in 48 of the world’s 49 identified Muslim-majority countries and territories.2
One way of considering the changes in fertility in these countries is to plot a 45-degree line across a chart and to compare fertility levels from three decades ago on one axis against recent fertility levels on the other axis. A country whose fertility level remains unchanged over time will remain exactly on this plotted line. If the fertility levels of the earlier time are plotted on the x-axis and the more current fertility levels on the y-axis, any country whose fertility level rises over time will be above the plotted line, whereas a country experiencing fertility decline will be located below the plotted line; the distance of these data points from the plotted line indicates the magnitude of a country’s absolute drop in fertility over these decades.
The results from this exposition of data are displayed in Figure 1. As may be seen, according to unpd estimates and projections, all 48 Muslim-majority countries and territories witnessed fertility decline over the three decades under consideration.
So, wholly independently of any European nation governmental/political/societal factors, the fertility rate of Muslims world-wide is plummeting. And of course, this trend only continues, or is even exacerbated in Muslim immigrant families to Western nations. While the 1st and 2nd generations may be somewhat inured against local culture, localization always ensues, and 3rd generation immigrants are barely discernible in terms of fertility rates comparative to the only nation they've ever lived in.
Which brings us back round to the funny ignorance on display. Tree still doesn't know what the Pew Research paper means when it says 'Muslim', which says rather a lot about why Tree holds such poorly reasoned positions in the first instance.
Thus, a coptic Christian from Egypt would be considered a 'Muslim' for the sake of the paper's numbers, as would a Mandaean Iraqi - which is perfectly fine if we're all clear about how we're talking about immigration from Muslim-majority nations, but becomes a problem when numpties mistakenly believe that this means they're all actually Muslim. On top of that, the 2nd and 3rd generations of Muslim immigrant families are increasingly abandoning their Islamic beliefs in favour of the secular beliefs of their peers. The General Social Survey in the US shows that 32% of Muslim immigrants have stopped believing or practicing. The simple fact is that, quite the contrary to the fear-mongering Tree's espousing here, Muslim immigrants abandon Islam in vastly greater proportions than they radicalize towards violent fundamentalism.
But reality's no use to those who want to bang drums.
Tree said:How far into this not very far future are you talking about?
A couple of centuries probably.
:lol:
It is exactly like talking to a Creationist who thinks they can just emote at scientific topics without the faintest comprehension as to why their ideas are barking mad.
How about you stop flapping and start thinking what that would entail. How do you turn 44 million people into 700+ million people in a couple of hundred years. Do the math, show your working, lulztime.
Tree said:Relatively short amount of time considering we've been around for 200k years.
If by 'we' you mean anatomically modern human beings, then it's actually more like 315,000 years... although with dispersed archaic admixture until around 30kya.
Regardless, for clarity, the entire length of span of a species lifetime has no bearing whatsoever on the rate of fertility for a given population at a given period of time, so the sentence is a non-sequitur style red herring used to prop up your silly assumption that Muslims can become the dominant population of a European nation in the goal-post-stretched time period of a couple of centuries.
Do the math. Go on!
Tree said:you're appealing to a hypothetical model based explicitly on a continued crisis occurring for multiple generations. What is the actual likelihood of this?
It probably won't continue at the same rate, but Europe has set the precedent that it will not turn back refugees even if the numbers are high.
The precedent was set by the Geneva Conventions and by the United Nations Agreements on Human Rights, as I've already told you.
These are some of the pinnacles of our species' achievements in terms of our treatment of other human beings, and even if oafs like you want to toss them out just because you're scared the Mooslims are coming... Europe has largely shown that its values are superior, that it truly stands for what it says. Luckily, your and yours are still a baying minority with delusional fantasies of some kind of Atlas Shrugged post-apocalyptic cowboy world, we know that these values are worth protecting, and it is what makes our nations superior than those which don't offer the same treatment of human beings in need.
Tree said:This can only encourage future migration, including people who aren't in any real crisis but economic migrants.
Which is irrelevant because they'll be rejected or accepted according to their own situation not because of invoked slippery slopes.
Tree said:Well, not very high at all, not least because the numbers are already dropping. In reality, once crises are over, vast numbers will return home.
You have nothing to back the notion they will return home.
:lol:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-finland/thousands-of-iraqi-refugees-leave-finland-voluntarily-idUSKCN0VL0UE
:lol:
http://conservative-headlines.com/2014/07/muslims-are-leaving-denmark-new-repatriation-assistance-law-is-working/
:lol:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/world/middleeast/europe-migrant-crisis-reverse-migration.html
:lol:
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1057698/muslim-refugees-returning-home-after-finding-germany-intolerable/
I love how Tree emotes reality at me while telling me that, as my sentence contradicts his emoted reality, then I must not have any ability to support what I said. Good old Gospel according to Tree again!
Cue handwaving, distractions, red herrings and general bluster.
Tree said:Return to what? Working hard in a broken land when it's easier to just squeeze welfare from gullible Europeans while giving nothing or next to nothing in return?
Utterly clueless and you really show it. Do you believe stories where welfare in European nations makes you rich? :lol: Do you imagine these Muslim immigrants drinking sparkling apple juice in heated outdoor jacuzzis?
You realize that welfare is mostly about simply allowing you to live - to eat, to have a roof over your head, to heat your house and pay bills? It's not a luxury, Tree - it's hand-to-mouth.
Regardless, you are of course attempting to paint all Muslims (as if it were a coherent group) as lazy grifters out to cheat people with no desire for achievement, no aspirations other than to suckle off of charity.
This naturally says a lot more about you as a person and how you think than it says about the millions of people who have fled violence and destruction in their homelands. To me, the very fact that they would make such a journey destroys your flaccid contention all by itself.
Tree said:Wet dreams are being made here today. A coup... in Sweden, you say?
A coup in 1917 Russia you say?
Definitely couldn't happen. Oh wait.
A red herring in the thread you say?
Definitely couldn't happen. Oh wait!
[Tree Mode On]
Did you mean the price of fish, perhaps? Hold on... LOOK OVER THERE!
*scampering sound then door slamming*
[Tree Mode Off]
Tree said:History is full of coups, the risk rises when there is social conflict as well such as Islamic values clashing with European values.
History is full of coups, therefore a laughably puerile attempt by 4chan child trolls to incite hatred and fear is possible because Tree is just that gullible that we are now obliged to go on the Anything Is Possible merry-go-round instead of talking about what's real.
Can't help but note that you are, once again, in true Alt-Right fashion engendering the very conflict you are wringing your hands about. From my perspective, that kind of lame agitator is you to a tee.
Tree said:There could also be social conflict determined by an external crisis, an earthquake, a plague, a solar flare powerful enough to fry the grid - and that's going to bring out the worst in people living in that area. Without common values, there's nothing to bind that country together through both good and most importantly BAD times.
You mean aside from being neighbours? Aside from their kids going to the same schools? You mean aside from having borrowed each other's lawnmowers? You know... all those REAL WORLD interpersonal interactions that are much more relevant when it comes to crises than nebulous concepts of identity being touted by someone whose entire agenda is about identity politics?
Tree said:Your civilization's paradigm is unsustainable.
You're a fruitcake, me old mucker.
Tree said:Ahh yes, Victorian mode on... it's the calibre of these people that is the real issue here, that brown lot can't get their acts in gear!
But wait, weren't they just poised to overthrow us?
Can't you get your fiction to at least be internally consistent? Are they useless schmucks who couldn't hope to organize a piss up in a brewery, or are they fiendish devils lurking behind smiles and waiting to stab us while we sleep?
I never said they were "useless schmucks" just that their values aren't compatible with a democracy.
You keep getting caught with your hand down your pants tugging furiously, then try to pretend you weren't doing what it's clear you were doing.
You just painted a picture of Muslims in Europe with no aspirations other than to live hand to mouth on state hand-outs, but in the next sentence you'll be invoking dire warnings about how they're collectively bent on bringing down Western civilization.
It's not my fault if your fantasy is internally inconsistent - but it's your responsibility to process your cognitive dissonance.
Tree said:They don't believe in liberty or government by consent, they believe in Sharia.
I find you a laughable little man because we've all seen how you think you can speak for me dozens of times even when I am here telling you otherwise, and now you think you possess the credibility to speak for millions of Muslims? :lol:
I'd say Get Over Yourself Already, but you're just a comedy figure now and it's more fun that you take your own febrile pronouncements seriously.
Tree said:Oh here we go. We haven't had any American myths for at least 10 posts, so I suppose we're due some.
Yeah no offense, but the last 200+ years have shown which civilization between America and Europe is more robust, more stable in the long term.
Don't bite the hand that feeds.
Has it?
Really?
Go on then - out with your myth: it will inevitably be another one you've uncritically bought into and given not a moment's thought before regurgitating it sticky and warm.
Let's guess - it's going to be World War 2, isn't it? :lol:
Tree said:They also saw first-hand the consequences of religious discrimination and did their utmost to ensure the USA never emulated the Religious Wars in Europe, but let's ignore context and go for cherries.
Anyone who reads the first amendment will notice that it protects the "FREE" exercise of religion. NOT "ALL" exercise of religion. So you're actually incorrect on that.
Actually incorrect on a strawman you made for me? :lol:
I specifically talked about RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION, Tree - you can see it right there. I was not talking about exercising or interfering with the exercise of religion - who did you think you'd fool with this lazy evasion?
Tree said:The government can interfere when people abuse their religious liberties to harm other people's rights. Just as they can interfere when people abuse their gun rights, their parental rights and whatever else. Freedom comes with being responsible for the consquences of your choices.
The Supreme Court for example even explicitly singled out human sacrifice as a type of religious practice that wouldn't be tolerable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause
As a matter of mere belief, yes, you can restrict yourself to merely believing that human sacrifice is good, the government can't prosecute you for that, they can only go after you if you attempt or succeed to carry out a human sacrifice, but there are other consequences besides mere criminal penalties: You can become a social pariah for one, nobody is obligated morally or legally to be around degenerates who think it's cool to sacrifice people to gods. Furthermore, the Constitution of the US doesn't apply to foreigners outside of US soil which means they can be denied entrance into the US for pretty much any reason merely because the immigration officer handling their visa approval thinks their presence would be detrimental to national interest. That would include support for human sacrifice. The President also has the power to exclude anyone he wants on those grounds.
Leaving the quote as is to provide another unabridged material example of your unceasing red-herrings.
Tree said:Wonderful. Sadly, when it comes to population biology you do need to be an expert to have your proclamations taken seriously. This folksy foray into ship metaphors notwithstanding.
In truth, this is complete bullshit. First, because a claim stands on its merits. This almost borders on the level of stupid of saying you can't date women successfully unless an "expert" teaches you how to...
It only borders on whatever fantastically delusional notion, which has precisely zero analogical value, you've conceived of because you lack any capacity for reasoned discourse.
In reality, an expert claim that stands on its own merits is relevant only when it stands up to the scrutiny of other experts because non-experts lack the requisite skill sets to judge the merits of the claim.
The worst case scenario is when numpties who know very little mistakenly assume that their poorly reasoned opinion dictates reality and makes whatever words they string together magically become worthy of attention.
I might just have possibly made mention of this to you before several dozen times... you know, Dunning-Kruger. You know.... emoting reality. You know... the Gospel according to Tree.
The advent of Wikipedia has a lot to answer for when it comes to people like you.
So yeah, getting a second opinion of whether you've got cancer doesn't actually entail you going and asking your mate Cleitus down the pub what he thinks... it means going and asking another expert for their (drum roll) expert opinion.
So how about you show your working - you want to talk around your claims, but funny how coy you are when it comes to actually spelling them out - that's when the ship metaphors start: it's almost as if you lack the competence to discuss the actual topic, and that's why you need to talk about something wholly unrelated and pretend it's analogous.
Tree said:Second, because there's no way you can possibly have enough expertise on this issue in the first place given how many fields interact here. Your implication that this is entirely population biology is wrong. You're not dealing with something akin to migratory bird patterns here, buddy. You're dealing with people, they are far more complex, these are very large groups of people organized into societies and how they interact (basically what sociology is defined as which is nowhere near as rigorous as the natural or hard sciences, particularly when it tends to have a leftist bias). You're also dealing with politics, you're dealing with ideologies, you're dealing with theology, you're dealing with social movements and a host of other not so easily predictable factors.
:lol:
Dude, I'm a biological anthropologist, which is beautifully ironic on your part.
Of course people can have expertise on this subject you total fucking numpty, not least because if they couldn't then it would mean your predictions are pulled out of your arse. In reality, the fact is that you cannot support your febrile claims, so you need to lash out at anything which presents a problem to them.
As for all your bluster - you are clearly missing the point by miles, and it's what makes you such a figure of fun. We're not talking about theology you cretin, or any of the other guff; we're talking about population biology, as in, how mechanically do you achieve a reproduction rate of a population which results in, say, 40 million people turning into 700+ million people within the same geographical location, the same population, as the 700+ million people across even a 'couple of hundred years' moved goalpost?
If you can't get your head round why this is bonkers, it's because it's fucking bonkers.
It's not my job to save you from your stupid claims - you are free to admit your errors, acknowledge the limitations of your understanding, and start discussing honestly rather than preaching bullshit at people.
In reality, you've done exactly as I've said many times: you've written a sentence and thereby somehow convinced yourself that it has merit merely because it contains a syntactic sense. Whereas, the fact is that your fantasy claim is impossible, actually impossible, there is no reproduction model that would be consistent with Muslims becoming the dominant population in any European country in any imaginable time-frame, aside from, as I said, by conquest and annihilation of the other populations. But outbreeding them? You're off your fucking rocker, me old mate.
Tree said:Given the amount of bias in these areas, plus the unknown factors, "expert" opinion is far less reliable, particularly when the experts can't even agree with one another, ...
/point and laugh
Back to Creationist Discoursive Strategies again!
So science says my illiterate, incoherent belief is wrong? Well, science isn't perfect, science doesn't know everything, science changes its mind all the time.
Tree said:... for example you can have political science graduates and professors with completely opposite views.
Well now, this is going to be difficult for you to grasp, I can tell... but just because it has 'science' in the name, doesn't actually mean it's a science.
Tree said:So which political positions are the "correct" ones?
Values red herring. Values are not reproduction rates of biological populations - LOOK OVER THERE!
Tree said:What is the "correct" tax rate or the "correct" number of immigrants?
Policy red herring. Governmental policies are not reproduction rates of biological populations - LOOK OVER THERE!!!!
Tree said:Can you answer that in the same way you could make a physics calculation or a computer software solution and everyone would agree with? No. Can you answer that in the same way you could map out the insides of a rabbit and everyone would agree with? No.
Can you map out the fertility rate of a population the same way... well yes, funnily, you can! :lol:
Turns out there are, strange as it may seem to some people, limitations on how many children any given population can have.
Tree said:I'm not saying it's subjective, I'm saying you have to do your own homework, draw your own conclusions and then vote accordingly, don't rely on "experts" and so-called "experts" alone. If you can't do it, nobody is going to do it for you. The idea that the future of our civilizations should rest exclusively in the hands of a bunch of so-called "experts" sitting in their ivory towers is laughable. Like we're too stupid or something to know what's best for us.
This is all a red herring, Tree... and again, given how I always identify your red herrings, it's bemusing that you still try!
We're not talking about policy decisions being informed by science or poor science, we're talking about your fantastical claim that Muslims could become the dominant population of a European nation at some point, through a combination of immigration and reproduction. Given the fact that the former is irrelevant because we're not going to have most of the world's Muslim population up and emigrate to Europe as I've already explained to you.... you're left only with the latter.
Sorry to inform you, but it doesn't matter if you can emote at this and thereby imagine a way where you turn at most 40 million people into more than 700 million people in a 'couple of centuries', you're wrong because that's not how reproduction works.
Of course, there are lots of stupid components to your claims, such as the notion that it's 'Muslims' who are the population whereas it is, in fact, a multitude of immigrants from various nations who have little to nothing in common with each other, and who will assimilate to varying degrees over the generations, or your ignorance of the decline of fertility rates, or your silly internally contradictory narratives... but the thing where you walk way out into wacky land is when you don't grasp what your claim entails with respect to population and fertility rates.
Finally, I'd disagree whole-heartedly with your red herring. We need more expert advice and counsel to navigate the difficulties our species faces because there is nothing more damaging or stupid than allowing ourselves to be led by people who emote reality based on their inane biases and prejudices.
Tree said:You haven't actually proven yourself to be an expert either, you merely asserted it, so by your own admission, I should ignore anything else you have to say on the issue until you prove yourself.
That stands without saying - no arguments from authority have been made, rather, you have been called out because of expertise. Another element of expertise - discoursive competence - is also noting that you are working overtime throwing out hundreds of words to avoid having to support the claim you made.
Tree said:Not only is it important to know what you studied but what you actually specialized in and also what kind of work you do in your daily life. For example, you could be a computer science graduate and working as a programmer using Java in some small tech company. You think that makes you an authority on everything IT related? Can you handle C++? Can you handle hardware as good as software? Can you handle other programming languages? How about something more specific, do you understand how the cryptocurrency algorithms work, shit like Bitcoins, have you done any research into it? Could you create a cryptocurrency given the resources? Do you understand what an ERP is and could you implement it for a company? The list goes on.
Lists: crimson cods, burgundy bass, titian tuna, scarlet sturgeon... the list does indeed go on!
Tree said:So what experience do you actually have working with Muslim demographic predictions...
None whatsoever. Why is that relevant? I'm talking about population biology, Tree - you know, how people fuck and make babies. You know, the mechanical reason why 40 million people don't turn into 700+ million people in a short period of time.
Tree said:and what do you predict will happen AFTER 2050 going forward for a few centuries? If you don't have an answer, you're no better than us non-expert peasants. Get off your high horse and get back in line. Make a proper case, don't just flaunt your degree.
What do I predict with respect to what, exactly? And how does not being able to predict some inane evasive rambling from an ideologically hostile twat on the internet mean I am not an expert in my field? :lol:
Also, busted. I pointed out that your lying bullshit won't float with me because of my expertise, Tree. So as much as you are obviously desperate to shift the burden of proof here, you are still left there dangling lacking any credible fucking reason whatsoever for your inane claim.
Do you intend to try and support that claim, or is this the best you're going to muster?
Tree said:Ahh we're back to ship scenarios again! Lucky us
Explain why it's not a good analogy.
Analogies are only useful when there is a functional or mechanical similarity between the two notions, where appealing to the working of one provides greater explanation about the workings of the other. Therefore, when you apply an analogy in which the function within the analogy is not remotely analogous to the workings of the thing you're supposedly explaining, then it is not only useless, but also suggests you don't possess any actual understanding of that which you are trying to explain.
Tree said:Because your claim is nonsensical and you can't support it.
Just because you don't agree with it doesn't automatically mean it's nonsensical.
It's nonsensical which is why you can't support it.
Tree said:Even if you take your naive method of appraising the data, how long would it take for your fantasy to come true? Have you calculated? Please show your working for the lulz!
Your ship's hull is filling with water.
No need to calculate the exact hour it will sink to reach the conclusion that it will sink.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Population biology done through the metaphor of water filling a boat.
Yeah, not actually how reproduction works, Tree.
Tree said:Technically you could stop it, but that requires action on your part, either plugging the hole or hypothetically getting your crew to get buckets and throw out the water faster than it gets in. Doing nothing = you sink.
Of all the mixed metaphors, this is the best I've seen. :lol:
So your support for your claim that Muslims will become dominant in some European nations in the near future is that water is filling a boat and inactivity in plugging the hole will make it sink!
Okaaaaaay.... and about your medicine.
Tree said:The Creationist Argument repeated for the 7th or 8th time.
Yes, I get it, everything you hate is a "creationist". It's getting old. Don't care.
Not at all, rather, it's telling when someone uses the same argumentative strategies as a Creationist. Plus, I don't give a rat's chuff about your degree of appreciation for what I write, not least because I long since realized you were about as amenable to honest, reasoned discussion as a barbed wire fence is amenable to naked polevaulting.
Tree said:Incidentally, I'm in the biological sciences, just so you don't trot off into another wild fantasy scenario you contrive ad hoc to sling poo.
And that gives you any expert-level insight into social trends, politics or theology how exactly?
None of those are required to show that your contention is fatuous, inane, and ignorant.
Tree said:Never mind how ridiculous that is.
It is indeed ridiculous.
Tree said:Now, I've interacted with economists (finance experts, brokers), they occasionally mail me advice on stock market investments. Not one of them has enough information to guarantee that any of my investments will pay off, in fact all the reports they keep mailing me come with a disclaimer along the lines of this is just our opinion, we're not liable for your loss, do your own homework when you invest in a company or a bond, take your own risks blah blah blah. Every single broker does this.
So if finance experts can't even fully predict how the market will go, what makes you (and you're WAY out of your league here, this actually has VERY little to do with biology) so certain there's no possible way Muslims can become a majority anywhere in Europe?
Aside from your routine red herring where predictions of stock markets are meant to be analogous to population biology, the problem is that you think that your claim has little to do with biology, whereas it has everything to do with biology.
We've already established that, even in the wildest scenario possible where chaos ensues ad nauseum, the Muslim population of Europe will only arrive at 14% in 30 more years. This leaves you with a rather large hole to fill in your claim - on the order of hundreds of millions of people.
The problem for you is that mere breeding doesn't fill that hole. The only way you can get to those numbers is, as I have already informed you, through conquest and annihilation of the resident populations. You know, like your North Korea patter about how we need to get them before they get us, that's pretty much all you have left in terms of plugging the hole in your particular sinking ship!
There is no logical, reasonable, or rational path that results in Muslims becoming the dominant population of any European nation in the near future. You have asserted that it is so, and you have had your claim challenged, but funnily, all you seem to want to do is reverse the onus probandi and get me to make predictions about irrelevant things to show you wrong. No. You show how this works first because a) your own citation doesn't support your contention b) its methodology contradicts vast swathes of your claims c) you're left with a giant gap in the numbers you need and d) reproduction doesn't work how you imagine it works....
So do feel free to provide some reason to lend your contention any serious consideration, otherwise it's clearly dead in the water, sinking like a schooner bereft of mast and rowers, keel asplinter, and uncaptained adrift... and other folksy ship metaphors.
Tree said:You're treating a complex social and political issue like it's just a physics calculation where you can settle the answer in 2 minutes and doing appeal to authority because you don't have a good argument. Nobody but your friends and echo chamber will be convinced.
No, I am treating your inane assertion as complete fucking delusional asshattery on your part - all part and parcel of the litany of xenophobic hate and fear-mongering you've engaged in since you've arrived here, and the only way to show that I am wrong to do so would be for you to support your claims.
Given your inability to do so, and given your quite transparent attempts to shift the burden of proof, and your pages of distraction.... I'd say it's pretty much clear beyond doubt that your claim is busted, and you've been shown to hold absolute confidence in an idea you have no capacity to show as true, indicating that the reason for you holding it is just as shit as the reasons you've given here.
As for your motivations for doing so, that will be left to the discerning audience.