|
MiddleOne posted:This is the dumbest loving thing I've read in this thread in months. I've heard people on drugs make more coherent causality claims. Besides being a smug rear end in a top hat do you actually have a counter argument?
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:So you prefer to do your own statistical analysis, using the methods which you feel comfortable with, and questioning the assumptions you're aware of. Where did you learn these methods? Why would academics not use them? That's why I added a disclaimer. That was a facetious answer to somebody asking "how can large immigration change a country's social character?" Why do you find it so hard to believe that importing millions of people with polar opposite social and cultural beliefs would change a society's character? It is so plainly evident that it boggles the mind that you would find it difficult to understand. If Finland suddenly was composed of 25% Wahhabist Saudis do you think everything would stay the same in terms of social policies, views of women, treatment of religiosity, etc? If you do think that would change things, why would adding 10%, 5%, etc not change things. We are not talking about a few thousand immigrants here, Germany added over 1% to it's total population in under a year. With respect to statistics. Do you not understand the different between counting actual events and literally creating a model that includes numerous assumptions? One is based in reality and the other is an imaginary construct that may or may not accurately reflect reality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Taphreek posted:Besides being a smug rear end in a top hat do you actually have a counter argument? In a literal sense your claim is true, people have to exist to do crime. The problem is, that's not a meaningful claim in any capacity. It is in fact a really stupid claim. Should we prohibit people from having babies? I mean the babies could grow up to do crime, better not have babies, those deaths will be on your hand you ungrateful baby lover. You can accuse me of not taking you seriously but that claim is not any more ridiculous than the one you just made.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:In a literal sense your claim is true, people have to exist to do crime. The problem is, that's not a meaningful claim in any capacity. It is in fact a really stupid claim. Should we prohibit people from having babies? I mean the babies could grow up to do crime, better not have babies, those deaths will be on your hand you ungrateful baby lover. Your's is far more ridiculous. By that logic we should never attempt to change anything because "hey man, things just happen". Try this out. You invite me into your house. I punch you in the face. You connect the dots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:We examine the effect of immigration on the happiness of natives using panel data from Germany. They better run some new studies...
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Taphreek posted:My argument is that the burden of proof lies with people who want to fundamentally change the character of a nation. If you cannot create a strong and overwhelmingly compelling argument then the status quo should reign supreme. Countries are not social experiments. They belong to a group of people with a shared cultured and history. Fundamentally changing that is no small decision. I completely agree with you here. People that want to limit the constitutionally enshrined right to asylum are attempting to fundamentally change the character of a nation. If you can not create a strong and overwhelmingly compelling argument for why we should let people drown in the Med or die in warzones, then the status quo should reign supreme. Countries are not social experiments, they belong to a group of people with a shared culture and history, which has lead their ancestors to grant certain rights and privileges to people fleeing from war and persecution. Based on historic precedent and its consequences when similar aid was denied, they have agreed that saving human lives is important. Fundamentally changing that is no small decision.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:They better run some new studies... I'm in Germany currently and German food is pretty awful. They really need more immigration to get more variety. Halal food is significantly better than the native food here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Taphreek posted:Your's is far more ridiculous. By that logic we should never attempt to change anything because "hey man, things just happen". Man, if only society could be dumbed down to simplistic individual interactions. Social and economic research would be so easy. Have you ever actually set foot in academia? Just curious. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Oct 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I'm in Germany currently and German food is pretty awful. They really need more immigration to get more variety. Halal food is significantly better than the native food here. What did you try to eat and who cooked it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:What did you try to eat and who cooked it? Ribs, Pulled pork Chopped up sausage with curry sauce a few other things that mostly rely on sausages. Made by either restaurants or street vendors. It's all REALLY heavy on meat. Really, the best food I've had here was a Pita and some Indian food and some rice and curry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Orban's referendum on the EU's migration quotas has blown up in his face - he needed turnout to be above 50% for the result to be legally valid, but it's apparently going to be below that mark: https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/782637152362459136
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Orban's referendum on the EU's migration quotas has blown up in his face - he needed turnout to be above 50% for the result to be legally valid, but it's apparently going to be below that mark: So he spent millions arranging and marketing a referendum to avoid receiving a meager 1294 refugees and the poo poo didn't even work? This is like peak populism right here for those that were questioning the use of the term earlier.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Man, if only society could be dumbed down to simplistic individual interactions. Social and economic research would be so easy. Again, what exactly is your point? Nowhere in my posts have I claimed that simple crime tallies represent the entirety of the world and human interaction. The discussion was on the concrete impact of large scale immigration by culturally alien peoples. I responded with crime stats showing that immigrants commit crimes far out of proportion to their numbers. You have yet to respond to why those stats are not "an issue". Are you saying that these crimes would have happened anyway? Or that they are not valid" Posting studies with artificial models and statistically-significant-but-meaningless-in-the-real-world results is NOT a counter argument. Why are you so locked onto a wholesale belief in models and algorithms as a replacement for direct observation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Orban's referendum on the EU's migration quotas has blown up in his face - he needed turnout to be above 50% for the result to be legally valid, but it's apparently going to be below that mark: Toplowtech fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Oct 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I think this thread contains clear evidence that Germany is once again turning Europe against itself, which historical evidence indicates is the first step toward a reduction of the German nation through violent means. What should we do about this? Taphreek posted:Why do you find it so hard to believe that importing millions of people with polar opposite social and cultural beliefs would change a society's character? I don't, and I didn't say that I did. What I said is that I haven't seen evidence that keeping a society unchanged is either possible or preferable. In this situation, what beliefs do you see as opposed, and what changes do you think take place when people with such beliefs live together? quote:With respect to statistics. Do you not understand the different between counting actual events and literally creating a model that includes numerous assumptions? One is based in reality and the other is an imaginary construct that may or may not accurately reflect reality. I don't. As I see it, when you count events, and draw a conclusion based on them, you are creating a model. You can argue that it's simpler and reflects reality more accurately compared to some other model, but there's no point where it becomes a totally different kind of thing. It would be like if I said that gardening is good, but farming is fundamentally dishonest. In my country, some people count the actual number of times white people and black people are shot by the police. They find that the first number is higher. From this, they derive a model: being black does not increase your risk of being shot by the police. This model has the advantage of being simple, but the disadvantage of being wrong. Doc Hawkins fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Oct 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:It still reached 95% of "gently caress migrants" out of 45%, still at least the abstention strategy worked, if it hadn't it would have been a really really really bad news. Orban also promised he would quit if he lost but that's not going to happen and i have a hard time seeing the whole thing as a victory for democracy. It wouldn't be good but it wouldn't be that horrible either because even if successful the referendum wouldn't have legal repercussion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:It wouldn't be good but it wouldn't be that horrible either because even if successful the referendum wouldn't have legal repercussion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Taphreek posted:Again, what exactly is your point? That correlation does not imply causation. I'm not saying that your stats are wrong, I'm saying that the conclusions you are attempting to draw from them are unsubstantiated and at face value completely ridiculous. You've made an interpretation but that interpretation has basically no validity and therefore no meaning. And also, what is it with this misguided hatred of algorithms...? They are just a mathematical tool, would it stop being problematic if I broke down every single calculation instead of doing them in pre-programmed set? Also, artificial models? Are there natural models? How is that relevant to anything? Like if you're going to criticize the entire scientific field of statistics maybe you should try to articulate yourself in a way that is not made up of buzzwords.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:
I'm not trying to be condescending, but do you seriously not see how the cultural values of say, Afghanistan and Finland are not fundamentally different, and incompatible? What do you think would happen if you added a significant percentage of Afghani people into Finnish society? Do you think anything would change with respect to womens' rights, homosexual rights, etc. ? When I saw "society changing", I'm not talking about keeping things in forever unchanged stasis. I'm talking about maintaining a society with the same fundamental values that are held by the majority of its native inhabitants. Again, not trying to be condescending, but you don't seem to understand statistics and statistical mathematics very well. Saying "X people committed Y crimes and they have a rate of criminal behavior much higher than Z people" is not a model. This is a model: Xit = αi + δr + θt + εit. That is a model that uses certain pre-conceived assumptions in order to then manipulate *actual* variables. It is not 2+2 = 4. It can change radically depending on how you define the underlying variable. For a great real world example read some stuff about the financial crash of 2008 and how the models that were viewed as a substitute for reality failed catastrophically when it turned out they did not actually model reality all that well. MiddleOne posted:That correlation does not imply causation. I'm not saying that your stats are wrong, I'm saying that the conclusions you are attempting to draw from them are unsubstantiated and at face value completely ridiculous. You've made an interpretation but that interpretation has basically no validity and therefore no meaning. I'm getting tired of this line of argument and I think we should get back to European stuff but you aren't as clever as you seem to think you are MiddleOne. Again, you are strawmanning the hell out my arguments. I'm not anti-math or anti-model. I'm arguing against somebody using some real data and then making assumptions and then writing a paper saying "This is true". Some people posting studies in this thread clearly do not grasp the idea of a model showing that something MAY be the case. Instead they read a paper that says "Immigrants make things better" and take it as gospel, when the reality is that there are so many assumptions behind that statement that tweaking a few variable could change the entire set of results. EDIT: The only statement I've made has been that European statistics show that immigrants commit crimes far out of proportion to their population percentage. Full Stop. I'm aware that there are massive amounts of complexity behind those numbers, but it doesn't change the fact that european immigrants from third world countries commit lots of crime. We can argue about the cause or meaning of that, but that is an actual fact. Taphreek fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Oct 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:What should we do about this? MiddleOne posted:That correlation does not imply causation. I'm not saying that your stats are wrong, I'm saying that the conclusions you are attempting to draw from them are unsubstantiated and at face value completely ridiculous. You've made an interpretation but that interpretation has basically no validity and therefore no meaning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Taphreek posted:This is a model: The person you are talking to will not give a poo poo. I hope you understand this. Maths, numbers, all that stuff? Doesn't matter. edit: quote:EDIT: Yes, this. In Finland certain ethnic groups have such over representation in some crimes it is actually 17 times more common than the average, or that is to say, with other groups. But the people you are posting with won't give a poo poo either way. They will just call you a racist. And that's the end of it. Ligur fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Oct 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Ribs, Maybe it's not the food, but you who is bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Taphreek posted:I'm aware that there are massive amounts of complexity behind those numbers Thank you, that is all I was looking for.  A Buttery Pastry posted:But "correlation does not imply causation" doesn't mean that correlation can't actually be evidence for causation. If immigrants are way disproportionally represented in criminal statistics, then I think you should at least present an argument for why, absent their immigration, crime would be at the same level. Personally, I would go for institutional, economical or sociopolitical explanations way before I would even consider to start looking at cultural value systems which is a normative approach. There's also the problem of 'crime' itself being a very unreliable measurement that is difficult to make comparisons with. Take rape and Sweden for instance which is a traditional recurring argument in immigration, lets look at some actual official data.  If we were to do a simple descriptive reading of these numbers with no regard for causation or theory, we would conclude that incidents of rape has dramatically increased in the general population. However, if we actually start peering into how the data was assembled we notice that there are numerous other possible explanations for this discrepancy such as the method of quantification, the method of gathering, the willingness to report among victims and differences in legislative definitions. This is a problem you have in all matters in social sciences whether we are talking crime, political participation or simply unemployment. You have to actually interpret the data and to do that you need theory which is itself built on epistemological assumptions. There are no 1+1=2 equations and unlike in say physics or chemistry locking down conditions in anything resembling a lab-like environment is basically impossible with society scale research problems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Personally, I would go for institutional, economical or sociopolitical explanations way before I would even consider to start looking at cultural value systems which is a normative approach.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:They really need more immigration to get more variety. Really? Fun fact: Finland has the highest per-capita coffee consumption on the planet at 12 kg a year. How many immigrants from coffee-growing countries do you think live there? Or another example: here in Norway pre-packaged sushi started appearing in supermarkets a few years ago. What do you think caused this: an upsurge in Japanese immigration to our country or local manufacturers jumping on an international trend?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Taphreek posted:That sounds very nice and lovely, in theory. Your social systems depend on large numbers of young people to support the elderly. Those aren't being supplied by native birth rates.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:That's not an argument against "Immigration increases crime", it's an argument against the claim that this is due to cultural factors. Take organized crime, in the 90's it was all white biker gangs up here. Much like today they were extremely outwardly violent when feuding over territory. Today, they've been replaced by people of varying foreign descent. Crime statistics indicate that things are mostly the same or lower however. Lets say we had no immigration, would the biker gangs still have disappeared? Would we then magically no longer have organized crime? The question is not if the immigrants are committing crime, the question is if they are the cause of the crime. So I find myself asking, why has it changed to them being the ones to perpetuate crime? To me, that why is much more interesting and actually something I could study as structural explanations are more likely to be the cause then anything tied to the immigrants as individuals. When you make the claim that the immigrants brought the crime with them, as has been argued multiple times this evening, you are supposing that immigrants have some kind of inherent quality that predisposes them to crime. That pretty much only leaves cultural factors which to me doesn't seem very robust as an explanation all things taken into consideration.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Taphreek posted:I'm not trying to be condescending, but do you seriously not see how the cultural values of say, Afghanistan and Finland are not fundamentally different, and incompatible? What do you think would happen if you added a significant percentage of Afghani people into Finnish society? Do you think anything would change with respect to womens' rights, homosexual rights, etc. ? When I saw "society changing", I'm not talking about keeping things in forever unchanged stasis. I'm talking about maintaining a society with the same fundamental values that are held by the majority of its native inhabitants. My questions were about your specific beliefs, because I had no way of knowing what they are, and certain phrases that you used, because I couldn't tell what you meant by them. I know what makes two beliefs different, but I don't know what you think would make that difference "fundamental", "opposite," or "incompatible," and I don't know even one of the pairs of beliefs you believe are opposed. I understand they are on the subject of civil rights (somewhat ironically), but what are these, specifically? I definitely do not know what you think would happen in the scenario you're talking about. It sounds like you're suggesting Finnish people (the "native inhabitants") would change their beliefs to no longer be the "opposite" of what Afghani people believe. If that's wrong, please correct me, but either way, also please say what leads you think this would happen? As far as maintaining fundamental values, I also don't know what actions or effects you mean by that, but what I think of as my values aren't decided by citizen's vote, and I try to "maintain" or even spread those which I think are good, not those which I think are held by a majority of my ethnicity. quote:Again, not trying to be condescending, but you don't seem to understand statistics and statistical mathematics very well. Saying "X people committed Y crimes and they have a rate of criminal behavior much higher than Z people" is not a model. quote:For a great real world example read some stuff about the financial crash of 2008 and how the models that were viewed as a substitute for reality failed catastrophically when it turned out they did not actually model reality all that well. Luckily, bad models being bad does not mean all models are bad, or I think we'd have a very hard time getting anything done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
It~s hard to argue that impoverished migrants are not feeding straight into the demographics from which organized crime recruits, also that the magnitude and severity of organized crime in a given nation is constant over time, and only the people change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:I can guarantee you Le Pen would be already be on TV asking for a similar referendum in France if it had succeeded. That kind of poo poo feed the far right power base Europe-wide. So? She has no power. she's already on television anyway. It's like Brexit, referendums don't set precedents in other countries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:My questions were about your specific beliefs, because I had no way of knowing what they are, and certain phrases that you used, because I couldn't tell what you meant by them. By values I mean things like women being able to wear clothing of their choice, of homosexuals not facing harassment (or worse), freedom of religion. Should I go on. I'm sure you've seen the polls of certain religious groups which show insanely high endorsement for things like the death penalty of atheists/apostates, homosexuals, etc. And these percentages do not drop very much when those same people move to European countries. It's not a matter of native inhabitants changing their values, its a matter of their values being swamped by large numbers of immigrants with opposite values. It IS culturally related among certain immigrant group...it doesn't take much searching to find immigrants denigrating their host country's people and core values. Try arguing freedom of religion with somebody who thinks you deserve the death penalty. Or wearing certain clothing which, for the immigrants, automatically equals "you deserve to be raped." For a particularly dramatic example, see the Cologne attacks. Or the ongoing social problems in France. Or the high crimes rates of immigrants in EVERY European country. In some cases these are decades long issues, and they will not go away if only those racist Europeans could be friendlier. The math/model/algorithm thing is a dead end, debate wise. We are basically arguing different definitions of the word model. You are using it as a synonym for "hypothesis" and I was using it as a mathematical construct that contains arbitrary assumptions in addition to actual data.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
So statistics is bad, because it clashes with your own ideas of how certain behaviours are distributed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Taphreek posted:By values I mean things like women being able to wear clothing of their choice Certainly a thing protected in Western culture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:It~s hard to argue that impoverished migrants are not feeding straight into the demographics from which organized crime recruits, also that the magnitude and severity of organized crime in a given nation is constant over time, and only the people change. All that said, this is of course as much an argument against our approach to integration as it is against (non-Western) immigration in general.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Your social systems depend on large numbers of young people to support the elderly. Those aren't being supplied by native birth rates. This argument doesn't work. The social system depends on people contributing. The average refugee has a negative impact on the social system, being young simply means he'll be a negative asset for longer. Even the Minister for Labour acknowledges that most refugees won't have access to the labour market within the next 10 years as they lack even the most basic skills to contribute to a rather specialized economy. And even those who find a (low paying) job will still be a drain on the social systems as that's what the system is there for: To subsidize poorer people. Also, Germany has a pretty impressive net influx of citizens from the European Union who, again on average, do contribute to the social systems as they have an above average education and usually speak some useful language like English or German (gasp!). So the solution to stabilizing the social system seems to be found rather in more qualified immigration than opening up for the sick and downtrodden. Doesn't change the need for a humanitarian solution, but it means that from an utilitarian pov there's no reason for the immigration of unskilled labour into Germany. A Buttery Pastry posted:Pretty much. Given the realities of our attempts at integration, non-Western immigrants are most likely going to slot into the category of "Un(der)employed and marginalized people"; people who are going to be primed for joining organized crime due to a (perceived or real) lack of legitimate opportunities. And yeah, the assumption that (organized) crime is a constant fixture, with immigrants simply taking over the "blue collar crime jobs" seems pretty spurious. Most Asian immigrants integrate pretty well, even when from an uneducated background. At least in France and Germany. Perhaps successful integration might also be dependent on the attitude of the immigrant, who - most shocking, I know - could have some kind of agency? Einbauschrank fucked around with this message at 08:41 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
Well, I guess the counter argument is that if people started having a bunch of children right now, those would also be a drain on the budget for the next almost two decades. The system works on an assumption of a motivated reciprocal relationship between the public budget-funded agencies and individuals, i.e. that the recipient of public moneys will be eventually or through some unpaid service able and willing to provide back. I hope that most immigrants do consent with this fact that they receive support not out of the good of somebody's heart, but as a form of investment into human capital. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Well, I guess the counter argument is that if people started having a bunch of children right now, those would also be a drain on the budget for the next almost two decades. That's not so much a counterargument as literally how society works. Unless you poach the highly educated there are always investment costs to population growth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:That's not so much a counterargument as literally how society works. Unless you poach the highly educated there are always investment costs to population growth. Yes? It negates the argument that immigrants are too expensive, because the alternative, raising more children, is also expensive, and also requires people to abstain from work to take care of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 09:03
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Well, I guess the counter argument is that if people started having a bunch of children right now, those would also be a drain on the budget for the next almost two decades. It sometimes happens that parents can support or at least contribute to the upbringing of their children, which mitigates some of the cost on the social system or in combination with the net drain ends up with a high concentration of human capital with a higher return. And then it makes a difference whether a child starts contributing after 20-25 years (i.e. at the age of 20-25) and goes on contributing for another 40-50 years in potentially more specialised jobs or if a 25-40 year old is needing another 10 years to become able to access the labour market and become a contributor or at least less of a drain. And then only works for 15-30 years with (usually) a stay at home wife who won't contribute anything to the system. Good luck earning enough until retirement not to be dependent on welfare. Of course, the immigration of already educated people - like from other European countries - is the "best" option wrt the social system. The problem is that there is little overlap between the qualities of the people immigrating to Germany in 2015 and the qualities needed for a sustainable social system. The were big hopes in the beginning, like "They are all highly motivated". But it turns out only a very small number wants to spend another few years in training, most prefer the short-term solution of earning a little money now on the side (to send back home) rather than investing into their future. So there is even little overlap between the motivation needed for a successful integration and the motivation that led them to Germany in the first place. Einbauschrank fucked around with this message at 10:10 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 09:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:13 |
|
steinrokkan posted:Yes? It negates the argument that immigrants are too expensive, because the alternative, raising more children, is also expensive, and also requires people to abstain from work to take care of them. The big difference is that a majority of the cost is payed by the parents, who obviously have a very deep connection to their children.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 09:23
|
|