|
vuohi posted:http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/a1462159535160?ref=hs-fprio-4-1 onko meidän nyt ihan pakko kopioida jokaista typerää ajatusta mikä ruotsista tulee?
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:01 |
|
|
Paavo ja Piraatit — Eurosta Bitcoiniin
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
Triple A posted:onko meidän nyt ihan pakko kopioida jokaista typerää ajatusta mikä ruotsista tulee? I don't think we need Sweden for getting stupid ideas anymore. We already know English enough. Sadly.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 11:05
|
|
|
Rexroom posted:I don't think we need Sweden for getting stupid ideas anymore. We already know English enough. Sadly. tietääkseni ruotsi on tässä asiassa ollut edelläkävijä ja he ovat ajaneet fyysisen rahan käytöstä poistamista jonkin aikaa jo
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 11:11
|
|
|
There's a slight difference between attempts to reduce the amount paper currency in circulation and adopting loving Buttcoin. Namely that in the first case you still have an actual currency, while in the second case you're basing your monetary system on a huge-rear end scam.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:while in the second case you're basing your monetary system on a huge-rear end scam. so nothing would change  Seriously though I can't believe someone suggested that under their own name.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
Kirjoittaja on tekniikan tohtori ja digitaalisten hyvinvointipalvelujen konsultti. I'm suddenly all for defunding education and turning the whole country into a theme park for the chinese. How in the gently caress was that shite not in the opinion pages.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
But Steam sells good games and is making money ergo Finland should be like Steam.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Tekniikan Tohtori Bull Mentula.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Darkest Auer posted:I tried to type up a post to describe how incredibly retarded this is, but in the end I think the best response is "lol" That's pretty much why I posted just the link and no commentary. If I had to say something, it would probably be something in the vein of "tracking payments in everyday economy is pretty difficult, laborious and costly, so let's base everything on a completely decentralized, unaccounted and uncontrollable system built by hobbyists".
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Has anyone calculated how much investment it would require to spin up enough CPUs to kill bitcoin? Could e.g. China do it realistically, if they wanted?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
Pussy Noise posted:Has anyone calculated how much investment it would require to spin up enough CPUs to kill bitcoin? Could e.g. China do it realistically, if they wanted? You can't kill something that was never alive to begin with.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
Pussy Noise posted:Has anyone calculated how much investment it would require to spin up enough CPUs to kill bitcoin? Could e.g. China do it realistically, if they wanted? Funny thing is, the Chinese already control the buttcoin blockchain because they have so many farms going on. It's one of the reasons why transactions are so slow, because they have to go through China's red firewall. Twice.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
Pussy Noise posted:Has anyone calculated how much investment it would require to spin up enough CPUs to kill bitcoin? Could e.g. China do it realistically, if they wanted? More than the natural resources of the planet.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
Pussy Noise posted:Has anyone calculated how much investment it would require to spin up enough CPUs to kill bitcoin? Could e.g. China do it realistically, if they wanted? No investment is even required, China can just confiscate all the existing privately owned buttmining farms within its borders to gain control of like 80% of the hashrate.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
Rexroom posted:Funny thing is, the Chinese already control the buttcoin blockchain because they have so many farms going on. It's one of the reasons why transactions are so slow, because they have to go through China's red firewall. Twice. Real question: how does the blockchain work? Does every buttcoin user have to download like 15 terabytes of data on their computer to use them?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 11:12
|
|
|
Darkest Auer posted:Real question: how does the blockchain work? Does every buttcoin user have to download like 15 terabytes of data on their computer to use them? Yes and no. Every "full node" has to, and also has to donate a large amount of bandwidth to the network without receiving any compensation. Originally every user was supposed to run a full node, but since this is utterly unrealistic most users these days just run thin clients that leech on the 6500 or so full nodes.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
Herman Merman posted:Yes and no. Every "full node" has to, and also has to donate a large amount of bandwidth to the network without receiving any compensation. Originally every user was supposed to run a full node, but since this is utterly unrealistic most users these days just run thin clients that leech on the 6500 or so full nodes. Well I'm convinced! Grandma, it's time to get the money out of the mattress!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
 Three more years...
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
Current Minister of Interior Petteri Orpo has announced that he's going to challenge Stubb for the post of top dog of NC. Now it really begins.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
Rexroom posted:
Rexroom posted:Current Minister of Interior Petteri Orpo has announced that he's going to challenge Stubb for the post of top dog of NC. Now it really begins. http://yle.fi/uutiset/nakokulma_hallituslaiva_vuotaa/8858423 It's been one year. One year. ONE YEAR
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Saying that doesn't make it true. good. maybe now you understand why your posts suck quote:At no point have I attempted to say someone's opinion is factually wrong or rant about others legitimately addressing my posts. this is still a lie tho quote:I have, to you directly as well in few cases. You not even acknowledging them doesn't mean that is not true either. Do you want me to quote them back to you so you may pick up where you left off and attempt to respond this time? See there is another difference, I don't ignore the stuff you post only to return to rag you out of nowhere and pretend I've never even heard about what you wrote. the only hard facts you have posted are pure statistics, and only them. your interpretation of statistics is as factual as mine, given that we are making assumptions based on country of origin alone. saying your interpretation is a fact does not turn it into a fact except maybe in your head. for example, posting an UNHCR guide on how to interview a refugee is not a "fact" but a statement in that this is how things should go in an ideal situation, and not how effective these processes are and what proportion of asylum shoppers actually get caught. as for the post you're referring to quote:Haha do you just believe people hold completely crazy opinions until you've asked them? I base it on having read this thread from the beginning to the end and I have no reason to think anyone here is clinically insane, kind of like how I don't think you are a potential cannibal. Maybe there are some lurkers who believe using a refugee crisis as a stepping stone for a better situation is an OK thing but that's batshit nuts so I'm going to give the posters the benefit of the doubt. i don't believe people hold completely crazy opinions until i've asked them, i know from  anecdotal evidence and reading these forums that people do in fact hold completely crazy opinions. this is a subjective matter of course, and my opinions are no doubt bat poo poo insane to some. your argument hinges on presumptions and scientifically unverifiable opinions, which are apparently bad and factually wrong if they come from ligur(s), but alright if they support your arguments.quote:Like are you assuming that they are lying about being Syrians or what? quote:What possible evidence you have about that then your gut feeling? quote:Do you think UNHCR completely lacks ways to check out whether or not someone is from the country they say they are from? quote:If I drag you out of the cold and give you a chance to sleep on the floor or the bed, are you a loving rear end in a top hat for choosing the bed?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Nauta posted:good. maybe now you understand why your posts suck It's not though. quote:the only hard facts you have posted are pure statistics, and only them. your interpretation of statistics is as factual as mine, given that we are making assumptions based on country of origin alone. saying your interpretation is a fact does not turn it into a fact except maybe in your head. for example, posting an UNHCR guide on how to interview a refugee is not a "fact" but a statement in that this is how things should go in an ideal sitution, and not how effective these processes are and what proportion of asylum shoppers actually get caught. "Pure statistics" also news articles, also reasons why these statistics are valid. But let's entertain you - then what the hell else are we supposed to use as logical proof besides statistics? Seriously, I'm sorry that you hate them for some reason I haven't deciphered yet (maybe because they don't correspond with how you feel things should be) but they are accepted as valid form of proof by: The Republic of Finland Every other government involved and those who are not The United Nations European Union Every news organization that is even halfway legit Every independent organization involved in the process Everyone writing any sort of research or study regarding the issue So no, in a factual debate you can't just go NO I DON'T BELIEVE THEM, you actually have to provide me with something that shows that there is something wrong with the statistics. Anything. Anything! Also it was not an "UNHCR guide on how to interview a refugee" it is the literal process that they use on each case, either through interpreter or the interviewer themselves in each case or they don't get registered as a refugee. They don't just jut down your claimed country at the border and wave you through, and if you are already a refugee you have gone through the process with someone who speaks your language most likely. You also have zero reason to lie on it either way since it doesn't help you to stay in the country at all. quote:i don't believe people hold completely crazy opinions until i've asked them, i know from Actually nobody in this thread holds opinions outside the general norms displayed by people in the public and private spheres. Being a cannibal would be well outside the norm, as would believing that cheating your way to asylum is OK. I don't see these opinions from people I meet or from things people write online or in the media or really, anywhere, so neither of these things are scientifically unverifiable. Statistics tell me that someone here being a cannibal is very unlikely, so I start from the position that they are not cannibals. Do you really think that since can't prove that there is NOT a giant elephant hiding behind a moon right now I am operating on an assumption? You get what false equivalence means? Believing that every major source of information in the world isn't engaging in some widespread deception about the national origins of asylum seekers is not an assumption. If it is I am assuming a whole lot of things, like how everyone in the government is not a lizard person. I want to believe it as much as you want to believe your crazy poo poo but all signs point to no (statistically we have caught zero lizard people in the act). quote:no. i assume human beings are opportunistic liars regardless of race, sex, etc., and will use any advantage they can to their benefit. this is just my personal opinion and you're free to disagree with it, but that's where i'm coming from. some of them (asylum seekers) are genuine, some of them probably come from relatively safe areas and are just testing the waters because our system enables them. Yeah well we know who are genuine and who are not. We know who are coming from relatively safe areas and who are not. We have ways to determine it and those ways are being used because people are getting caught. We have multiple news articles posted where the people who get caught are a fraction of the actual people involved. Why? Because it's pretty stupid to claim that you are from Syria if you are a Peruvian or something. Because our system doesn't enable them to do anything else then chill in a country for a while until they get booted when their story is inevitably proven wrong in the final asylum process (where an actual 100% Iraqi might still get booted, a guy from Bangladesh pretending to be Syrian doesn't stand a chance). It's pretty loving stupid to spend thousands of dollars for that privilege. So not a lot of people do it, as we know from the evidence. quote:i don't, apart from the multiple reports about asylum shoppers, some of which have been posted in this thread. those incidents might be the tip of an iceberg or just a few isolated incidents. at this stage i don't believe anyone knows for absolute certainty either way. i guess only time will tell Multiple reports that in pure numbers comprise a fraction of the Syrians (or any other nationality). You can't make up hundreds of thousands of potential fake Syrians to bulk your case because according to literally all available proof they don't exist. And time has told! It's been over a year! EU has granted asylum to 330,000 asylum seekers last year. Statistically if a significant portion of the Syrians applying were fake, we would have had a lot more rejections. How much do we have? (Q4 2015) http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statis...uarter_2015.png Oh, just two percent. I guess all the fake Syrians started arriving in 2016? Where will the goalposts move next? quote:not completely, but i highly doubt they're fool-proof as they rely on the professional capability and intuition of the interviewer. Why do you think the professional capability and intuition of people who have trained for years for this kind of poo poo and have been doing the job for years more is so low that they can't even tell what country someone is from? How have they caught the other cheaters if this is the case? Where have you received the proof for this incompetence? quote:the number of people who get caught cheating tells us just that, the number of people who get caught. it does not take into account those don't get caught No, it tells us that people do get caught so the system is not easy to cheat and furthermore, trying to cheat your national origin would be very loving dumb. But let's follow your assumption into it's logical consequence. Either you believe that A) there are significant number of people (speaking of hundreds of thousands) who are dumb enough to not just claim to be a Syrian to cheat this simple system (or at least get an initial advantage from these clueless interviewers) B) there are significant number (at least tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of) of people from third world countries skilled in faking being a Syrian enough to survive two separate in-depth processes of interviewing Which is it? I assume it is A (notice how I left you another choice though) since you seem to believe that the system is easy to cheat, so further question if that is the case - why the gently caress is anyone claiming to be Pakistani or Yemenite? Why don't we have bunch of people saying "Man, if only I had SAID I was Syrian they wouldn't be throwing me out!" instead of "Man, if only I WAS Syrian they wouldn't be throwing me out!" DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 18:37 on May 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
lukeeko kukaan täällä noiden tolstoiden teoksia
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:lukeeko kukaan täällä noiden tolstoiden teoksia Ei
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Nauran ääneen kenellekkään joka lukee postauksia
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
En paitsi välillä jään ihailemaan Naudan ihkua avataria.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
what a massive sperg slap fight. i like itDarkCrawler posted:It's not though. quote:"Pure statistics" also news articles, news articles, even by reputable organizations, are made by journalists, who might or might have not understood the issue they are reporting, might or might have not omitted some key elements of the story, might or might have not fabricated their story, might or might not act on pure hearsay, etc. all of these things happen as news articles aren't peer reviewed. news articles aren't de facto hard evidence about anything, they are more a general guideline on a given issue. if you take news articles as the literal truth then i don't know what to say except that your media literacy isn't very good. quote:also reasons why these statistics are valid. But let's entertain you - then what the hell else are we supposed to use as logical proof besides statistics? Seriously, I'm sorry that you hate them for some reason I haven't deciphered yet (maybe because they don't correspond with how you feel things should be) but they are accepted as valid form of proof by: quote:Believing that every major source of information in the world isn't engaging in some widespread deception about the national origins of asylum seekers is not an assumption. If it is I am assuming a whole lot of things, like how everyone in the government is not a lizard person. I want to believe it as much as you want to believe your crazy poo poo but all signs point to no (statistically we have caught zero lizard people in the act). quote:Yeah well we know who are genuine and who are not. We know who are coming from relatively safe areas and who are not. We have ways to determine it and those ways are being used because people are getting caught. We have multiple news articles posted where the people who get caught are a fraction of the actual people involved. Why? Because it's pretty stupid to claim that you are from Syria if you are a Peruvian or something. Because our system doesn't enable them to do anything else then chill in a country for a while until they get booted when their story is inevitably proven wrong in the final asylum process (where an actual 100% Iraqi might still get booted, a guy from Bangladesh pretending to be Syrian doesn't stand a chance). It's pretty loving stupid to spend thousands of dollars for that privilege. So not a lot of people do it, as we know from the evidence. quote:Why do you think the professional capability and intuition of people who have trained for years for this kind of poo poo and have been doing the job for years more is so low that they can't even tell what country someone is from? How have they caught the other cheaters if this is the case? Where have you received the proof for this incompetence? quote:No, it tells us that people do get caught so the system is not easy to cheat and furthermore, trying to cheat your national origin would be very loving dumb. quote:But let's follow your assumption into it's logical consequence. Either you believe that neither. i assume an asylum shopper can (try to) lie, apart from nationality, about the persecution and whatnot they'd face if they got sent back. also  stop triggering me Fushigi Yuugi fansub fucked around with this message at 21:54 on May 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Let me just say that ˙llɐ ʇɐ ʎɹʇunoɔ ǝɥʇ uᴉ ʎɐʇs oʇ noʎ dlǝɥ ʇ,usǝop ʇᴉ ǝɔuᴉs ʎɐʍ ɹǝɥʇᴉǝ ʇᴉ uo ǝᴉl oʇ uosɐǝɹ oɹǝz ǝʌɐɥ oslɐ no⅄ ˙ʎlǝʞᴉl ʇsoɯ ǝƃɐnƃuɐl ɹnoʎ sʞɐǝds oɥʍ ǝuoǝɯos ɥʇᴉʍ ssǝɔoɹd ǝɥʇ ɥƃnoɹɥʇ ǝuoƃ ǝʌɐɥ noʎ ǝǝƃnɟǝɹ ɐ ʎpɐǝɹlɐ ǝɹɐ noʎ ɟᴉ puɐ 'ɥƃnoɹɥʇ noʎ ǝʌɐʍ puɐ ɹǝpɹoq ǝɥʇ ʇɐ ʎɹʇunoɔ pǝɯᴉɐlɔ ɹnoʎ uʍop ʇnɾ ʇsnɾ ʇ,uop ʎǝɥ┴ ˙ǝǝƃnɟǝɹ ɐ sɐ pǝɹǝʇsᴉƃǝɹ ʇǝƃ ʇ,uop ʎǝɥʇ ɹo ǝsɐɔ ɥɔɐǝ uᴉ sǝʌlǝsɯǝɥʇ ɹǝʍǝᴉʌɹǝʇuᴉ ǝɥʇ ɹo ɹǝʇǝɹdɹǝʇuᴉ ɥƃnoɹɥʇ ɹǝɥʇᴉǝ 'ǝsɐɔ ɥɔɐǝ uo ǝsn ʎǝɥʇ ʇɐɥʇ ssǝɔoɹd lɐɹǝʇᴉl ǝɥʇ sᴉ ʇᴉ ,,ǝǝƃnɟǝɹ ɐ ʍǝᴉʌɹǝʇuᴉ oʇ ʍoɥ uo ǝpᴉnƃ ɹƆHN∩,, uɐ ʇou sɐʍ ʇᴉ osl∀ ¡ƃuᴉɥʇʎu∀ ˙ƃuᴉɥʇʎu∀ ˙sɔᴉʇsᴉʇɐʇs ǝɥʇ ɥʇᴉʍ ƃuoɹʍ ƃuᴉɥʇǝɯos sᴉ ǝɹǝɥʇ ʇɐɥʇ sʍoɥs ʇɐɥʇ ƃuᴉɥʇǝɯos ɥʇᴉʍ ǝɯ ǝpᴉʌoɹd oʇ ǝʌɐɥ ʎllɐnʇɔɐ noʎ 'WƎH┴ ƎΛƎI˥Ǝq ┴,NOp I ON oƃ ʇsnɾ ʇ,uɐɔ noʎ ǝʇɐqǝp lɐnʇɔɐɟ ɐ uᴉ 'ou oS ǝnssᴉ ǝɥʇ ƃuᴉpɹɐƃǝɹ ʎpnʇs ɹo ɥɔɹɐǝsǝɹ ɟo ʇɹos ʎuɐ ƃuᴉʇᴉɹʍ ǝuoʎɹǝʌƎ ssǝɔoɹd ǝɥʇ uᴉ pǝʌloʌuᴉ uoᴉʇɐzᴉuɐƃɹo ʇuǝpuǝdǝpuᴉ ʎɹǝʌƎ ʇᴉƃǝl ʎɐʍɟlɐɥ uǝʌǝ sᴉ ʇɐɥʇ uoᴉʇɐzᴉuɐƃɹo sʍǝu ʎɹǝʌƎ uoᴉu∩ uɐǝdoɹnƎ suoᴉʇɐN pǝʇᴉu∩ ǝɥ┴ ʇou ǝɹɐ oɥʍ ǝsoɥʇ puɐ pǝʌloʌuᴉ ʇuǝɯuɹǝʌoƃ ɹǝɥʇo ʎɹǝʌƎ puɐluᴉℲ ɟo ɔᴉlqndǝɹ ǝɥ┴ :ʎq ɟooɹd ɟo ɯɹoɟ pᴉlɐʌ sɐ pǝʇdǝɔɔɐ ǝɹɐ ʎǝɥʇ ʇnq (ǝq plnoɥs sƃuᴉɥʇ lǝǝɟ noʎ ʍoɥ ɥʇᴉʍ puodsǝɹɹoɔ ʇ,uop ʎǝɥʇ ǝsnɐɔǝq ǝqʎɐɯ) ʇǝʎ pǝɹǝɥdᴉɔǝp ʇ,uǝʌɐɥ I uosɐǝɹ ǝɯos ɹoɟ ɯǝɥʇ ǝʇɐɥ noʎ ʇɐɥʇ ʎɹɹos ɯ,I 'ʎlsnoᴉɹǝS ¿sɔᴉʇsᴉʇɐʇs sǝpᴉsǝq ɟooɹd lɐɔᴉƃol sɐ ǝsn oʇ pǝsoddns ǝʍ ǝɹɐ ǝslǝ llǝɥ ǝɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ uǝɥʇ - noʎ uᴉɐʇɹǝʇuǝ s,ʇǝl ʇnq ˙pᴉlɐʌ ǝɹɐ sɔᴉʇsᴉʇɐʇs ǝsǝɥʇ ʎɥʍ suosɐǝɹ oslɐ 'sǝlɔᴉʇɹɐ sʍǝu oslɐ ,,sɔᴉʇsᴉʇɐʇs ǝɹnԀ,, also ˙sʞɹoʍ sʎɐʍlɐ ssǝɔoɹd ǝɥʇ ʇɐɥʇ ʍolloɟ ʎllɐɔᴉʇɐɯoʇnɐ ʇou sǝop ʇᴉ 'sɹǝddoɥs ɯnlʎsɐ ʇno pǝǝʍ oʇ ssǝɔoɹd ɐ sɐɥ ɹƆHN∩ ǝsnɐɔǝq ˙ʇɥƃᴉɹ ɹo ǝʌᴉʇɔǝɟɟǝ ɹo ʇɔǝɹɹoɔ sᴉ ƃuᴉɥʇ ǝɥʇ ʇɐɥʇ ʍolloɟ ʎllɐɔᴉƃɐɯoʇnɐ ʇou sǝop ʇᴉ 'sʇsᴉxǝ ƃuᴉɥʇ ɐ ǝsnɐɔǝq oslɐ ¿sɹǝɥʇo uɐɥʇ spɹɐpuɐʇs ʇuǝɹǝɟɟᴉp ɟo ʇǝs ɐ oʇ pǝʍollɐ noʎ ǝɹɐ ʎɥʍ ˙ɟlǝsɹnoʎ ƃuᴉɥʇ ǝɯɐs ǝɥʇ ƃuᴉop ǝlᴉɥʍ ˙ɔʇǝ 'suoᴉʇdnssɐ 'ǝɔuǝpᴉʌǝ lɐʇopɔǝuɐ ƃuᴉsn ƃuᴉsn ǝɹɐ ǝldoǝd ʇɐɥʇ sᴉsɐq ǝɥʇ uo ʎlǝlos sʇuǝɯnƃɹɐ ƃuᴉʇnɟǝɹ ɹoɟ noʎ ƃuᴉzᴉɔᴉʇᴉɹɔ ɯ,ᴉ ʇnq 'ɥʇoq uǝʌǝ ɹo 'ʎlɹǝdoɹd ɟlǝsʎɯ uᴉɐldxǝ oʇ pᴉdnʇs ooʇ ɯ,ᴉ ɹo puɐʇsɹǝpun oʇ pᴉdnʇs ooʇ ǝɹ,noʎ ǝsnɐɔǝq ʎlqɐqoɹd 'ɯnʇᴉuᴉɟuᴉ pɐ ɟlǝsʎɯ ʇɐǝdǝɹ oʇ ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ ssǝnƃ ˙ƃuᴉuosɐǝɹ pɹɐʇǝɹ ɹnoʎ ƃuᴉuᴉlɹǝpun ɯ,ᴉ '(sɔᴉʇsᴉʇɐʇs ǝɥʇ ɹo) sɔᴉʇsᴉʇɐʇs ƃuᴉsn ʇnoqɐ ƃuᴉʇɐqǝp ʇou ɯ,ᴉ ʇɐɥʇ ǝʇou op ˙ɹǝʌǝʇɐɥʍ ɹo ,,ƃuoɹʍ ǝq ʇ,uɐɔ sɹǝʞoɯs uoᴉllᴉɯ 0ϛ,, ɹo uoᴉƃᴉlǝɹ ʎuɐ ǝldɯɐxǝ ɹoɟ ǝʞɐʇ 'ǝlqɐɥƃnɐl sᴉ ʇᴉ ǝʌǝᴉlǝq ǝldoǝd ʎuɐɯ ǝsnɐɔǝq ǝnɹʇ ǝq ʇsnɯ ƃuᴉɥʇ ɐ ʇɐɥʇ uoᴉʇou ǝɥʇ ˙ʎʇᴉɹoɥʇnɐ oʇ lɐǝddɐ puɐ suɐɯʍɐɹʇs ǝɔᴉu ɹǝlʇᴉɥ lᴉǝɥ
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Nauta posted:news articles, even by reputable organizations, are made by journalists, who might or might have not understood the issue they are reporting, might or might have not omitted some key elements of the story, might or might have not fabricated their story, might or might not act on pure hearsay, etc. all of these things happen as news articles aren't peer reviewed. news articles aren't de facto hard evidence about anything, they are more a general guideline on a given issue. if you take news articles as the literal truth then i don't know what to say except that your media literacy isn't very good. If you assume every news article is wrong then not only is your media literacy lacking, but it is really hard for you to operate in the world. If you assume they all are wrong on a specific issue you are a hypocrite. Nauta posted:nice strawmans and appeal to authority. the notion that a thing must be true because many people believe it is laughable, take for example any religion or "50 million smokers can't be wrong" or whatever. The fact remains, a bunch of official enterprises are gathering the statistics and operating based on these statistics. If there was widespread fraud to the level you are claiming or any reason to suspect these statistics there would be proof towards that. Especially when there is a lot of motivation to catch the fraud. Also you know, the basic logic that the countries involved aren't eager to hide bunch of fake Syrians. Lot of your assumptions have difficulty passing basic logic, you know. So no, that isn't something you get out by naming internet tactics. Nauta posted:do note that i'm not debating about using statistics (or the statistics), i'm underlining your retard reasoning. guess i have to repeat myself ad infinitum, probably because you're too stupid to understand or i'm too stupid to explain myself properly, or even both, but i'm criticizing you for refuting arguments solely on the basis that people are using using anecdotal evidence, assuptions, etc. while doing the same thing yourself. why are you allowed to a set of different standards than others? also because a thing exists, it does not automagically follow that the thing is correct or effective or right. You haven't explained why the statistics are wrong or why my reasoning based on the statistics is retarded. Your own arguments and beliefs conflict with the statistics. This is the issue you have, those are the things you have to counter. Just because you keep whining about me using anecdotal evidence and assumptions doesn't actually mean that I do so in real world. You might believe so, but half of this debate is about your bizarre belief system that nothing is certain and every conclusion is an "assumption" and operates on the same level of logic and worth. If you operate on a philosophical framework that does not correspond with reality that is certainly novel, but I am not obligated to (and really don't want to) feed your delusional worldview. Nauta posted:because UNHCR has a process to weed out asylum shoppers, it does not automatically follow that the process always works. UNHCR doesn't "weed out asylum shoppers". UNHCR does nothing more then register refugees. The figures I have quoted usually correspond to the ones coming through the Mediterranean. Some people may qualify as refugees but do not qualify as an asylum seeker based on the rules of the country they are applying asylum in. Some asylum seekers do not even register as refugees because they wouldn't qualify even for that, such as the 50,000 Kosovoans that rolled to Germany when the borders were open. That doesn't mean that when a Pakistani guy shows up claiming to be a Syrian the UNHCR wouldn't raise an eyebrow. The COUNTRIES register asylum seekers, a much more selective process than the UN's, and where the process seems to reveal a minuscule portion of fake ANYTHING nationality. This must be the third time I am explaining this basic concept in the crisis to you. quote:it is only an assumption, albeit most likely a correct one, but it is an assumption nonetheless. just like the giant elephant one. and you are indeed assuming a whole lot of things, most of which are probably true or close to the truth, but they are assumptions just the same I am not assuming anything. I am looking at what the statistics say and repeating them to you. The statement "only a fraction of people fake their nationality" is not a probability or an assumption, it is a fact based on the widespread statistical evidence conducted through a period of more than a year on hundreds of thousands of people. It is an accurate, numerical conclusion drawn on reputable statistical evidence. Your concept of "assumption" is inane and so nitpickery it's pretty apparent you're grasping at straws here. I guess on a theoretical level I assume that we are both humans writing on an online forum and I am not a brain in the jar operating in a simulated reality. If I suddenly started to argue from the other viewpoint you would think I was a pretty bizarre person. Explain to me what exactly isn't an assumption in your opinion? Since you are going on with the whole elephant thing I'm starting to have hard time with that question. Nauta posted:you are assuming we know with certainty who the genuine are and who are not, you are assuming we know with certainty who are coming from relatively safe areas and who are not, you are assuming that asylum seekers know the ins and outs of asylum seeking process before buying a one-way ticket from human traffickers, I know we can know with certainty which country someone is coming from in two separate in-depth interviews. I am not in fact assuming that they know the ins and outs of the asylum seeking process. I know they don't because some of them apply and get rejected. Yet you seem to believe that these masses of hypothetical liars from a third world country know the system so well that they can fool two separate sets of professionals and speakers of the language of their fake nationality. One process where there is no use in lying, another where the country is dying to not let the person stay in the country. Since this is a pretty significant assumption, any proof towards this would be appreciated. Nauta posted:you are assuming that i'm assuming that asylum shoppers claim to be syrians. Haha, what do they claim to be then if not the nationality that gets asylum the easiest? Are they fake Iraqis then, or fake Afghans? (not really other choices here if you want to talk about more than single digit percentages involved) It is pretty amazing where the goalposts go. Nauta posted:i'm assuming that there are differences between the capabilities of different UNHCR agents, some of whom are good at their job and some that are not so good, and given the huge number of new arrivals over the past ~year, i'm assuming it's more easy for an asylum shopper to slip through due to sheer numbers and workload. i'm assuming they have caught cheaters because some of the UNHCR workers are good at their job. i don't have any evidence for this incompetence though, i'm just assuming people don't always do their job 100% according to standards because human beings are not robots with unlimited ability to concentrate (unless you're an autist i guess). You are assuming that the incompetence at the level of not being able to tell what country someone is from in a lengthy interview exists. You also assume that this level is widespread enough to let through a significant number of people who fake their country. Why do you come to this assumption despite no evidence at all pointing towards it? Nauta posted:because people get caught, it does not automatically follow that the system is not easy to cheat. that's circular reasoning. other than that, i'll take your word for it. I've seen the system and it is not an easy one to cheat, also in the case of the first one there is no advantage in cheating and in the second one they want to catch as many cheaters as possible (and have made the standards much stricter), so you don't have to take my word for anything. Also basic human logic would tell you that faking your nationality isn't easy without professional training. For example every non-Arabic speaker is hosed from the get go. Nauta posted:neither. i assume an asylum shopper can (try to) lie, apart from nationality, about the persecution and whatnot they'd face if they got sent back. Okay, so why aren't more people lying, and why aren't the hypothetical liars getting caught when others are? Tell me how they lie, how they acquired these skills to dupe multiple professionals and how they maintain the facade of being from somewhere else for months on end while presumably living among other asylum seekers who actually are from those countries? This are all valid questions and I assume you are not just assuming things without thinking about them any further. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 10:16 on May 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
 you win
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 11:03
|
|
|
So can we get back on track and continue mocking our neighbors?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 11:48
|
|
|
lol at breivik
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
Nauta posted:
I'll assume I did.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 12:49
|
|
|
Mulli posted:ɹǝlʇᴉɥ lᴉǝɥ
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
Darkest Auer posted:So can we get back on track and continue mocking our neighbors? Seriouspost, does this meme have a name? It's so perfect. mspaint, jodhpurs, flags, flies, stink lines, it's all there
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
Darkest Auer posted:So can we get back on track and continue mocking our neighbors? OK so the moustache and goatee are there but why are the colours all wrong?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Herman Merman posted:Seriouspost, does this meme have a name? http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/4chan-flag-bearers google on ystäväsi
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:01 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 13:53
|
|