NationStates Jolt Archive

Which source? The economist source?

Yup.

No, because you are saying the UN numbers are ridiculous in the same sentence as saying that you agree with them… See below.

No, I'm not. Since you seem to like misleading people, I'll post the claim the opinion articles makes and how it is VASTLY different than the source you CLAIM it uses.

The numbers used in the opinion piece ARE FROM the UN source (that’s why I linked to them in the original post, so anyone that disputed the opinion piece paragraph that I quoted could look it up for themselves) … Make up your mind, do you agree with the UN numbers or not?

Really? Then why are they so different?

But if this proves correct, Europe's population in 2050 would be 360m and falling, America's would be over 550m and rising.

The table in the UN source shows the population of Europe being between 550M and 760M. Now, if this opinion article uses it as a source, then how can they be off by nearly 40%? Now that is the second time I referenced the numbers and you offered no explanation except claiming they are the same thing. Now, would you care to explain how the numbers can be off by that much if they are both correct? If one of them is wrong which one are you claiming is wrong?

Apparently 60% of the people taking this pole above disagree with your. The Christian option is the lowest returning ratio there now isn’t it. Are you suggesting that the Europeans that read this thread and voted in this pole don’t know what they are and their predictions for what will be are bogus because YOU say they are one way over the other and they can’t pick Atheist/Agnostic nor Secular?

One, are honestly suggesting that everyone taking this poll is educated about the subject and the numbers, educated about statistical analysis? That's clearly unlikely. Two, are they all Europeans? Nope. Three, you really should learn about statistical analysis? If you want to get an accurate number you can't put up a voluntary poll in a thread about the subject on a political site and expect anyone to accept this as not INCREDIBLY statistically flawed. Your own sources disagree with your claims. Four, they said that more people will be atheist, not that the majority of people will be atheist. You're poll options are skewed and don't reflect the claims you're making.

So merely by popular opinion of this forum, you seem to be in err now don’t you.

Um, appeals to popularity is a logical fallacy. Your own statistical source (clearly more reliable than the general opinion of the people voting in this thread) disagrees with the conclusion. If the source is flawed, why did you post it? Even worse, than an appeal to popularity is the fact that you are pretending the voters said something they didn't. Not helping people take you seriously.

(Ah, Ha! Finally, a real position, a post of debate, you finally put forward a position about the topic on hand. It must be like shitting nails for you or something, but alas, it’s here!)

Yes, it's only the third time I've posted it. I'm sorry if you're having difficulty reading my posts. I know how painful it is to be shown to be inconsistent over and over again by me and my ilk.

As pointed out previously in this very post, most of the voters in this poll seem to disagree with your complaint.

Only, if you don't actually read the poll option they selected.

But if you have ‘real’ evidence, as you put it, to show how we are incorrect in our overall assessment of the European situation and view of themselves, as supported by the Europeans in this very thread, put forth your evidence here. Evidence that Europeans believe the Christian religion is ‘prospering’ there.

Yet, the sources don't agree. Appeals to popularity are logical fallacies. The more you make them the more they hurt your argument. A large portion of Americans believed GWB would be the greatest Republican president ever. Why don't you try taking that poll now? I suspect you won't get the same results. Now, do you really want to claim that polls on NS should be considered evidence? Because I'll start a couple of threads that are going to make you sorry you made such a ridiculous claim.

Calling yourself a ‘Christian or a Catholic etc.,’ in the type of way YOU seem to be measuring it, from census surveys etc., is like someone responding as ‘Hispanic’ in an America survey, it means nothing unless three or four more questions are answered. They may simply be answering an ethnic type question as far as they are concerned, not stating their religious beliefs.

Oh, I see. So you get to decide what consists of a Catholic or a Christian now? Conveniently YOU overriding what people SAY they are with what you SAY they are just happens to support your opinion.

If being a REAL Christian requires one to trample the civil rights of others then I think you're right. 'Christianity' is in decline in Europe. European Christians have a general respect for civil rights, much to your chagrin. They believe in freedom of religion (thus the secular governments), much to your chagrin. They believe that all people are free to enter into relationships as they wish, relationships that will not and can not be defined by the government, much to your chagrin. They believe in helping children and their parents create stable, loving homes rather than creating laws that prevent it, much to your chagrin. I know you hate it, but the Christians that you don't want to count are the people that are following the actual principles of Christ - they are treating others as they wish to be treated.

If following the principles of Christ is less important to you than church attendance and forcing your beliefs on others and makes one less of a Christian in your eyes, then I hope I'm never a 'good Christian' in your eyes.

The table in the UN source shows the population of Europe being between 550M and 760M. Now, if this opinion article uses it as a source, then how can they be off by nearly 40%? Now that is the second time I referenced the numbers and you offered no explanation except claiming they are the same thing. Now, would you care to explain how the numbers can be off by that much if they are both correct? If one of them is wrong which one are you claiming is wrong?

I've discovered your problem... the opinion piece, is the opinion piece linked with the UN .pdf link, the OP of this thread. The Economist is a different link and a different source. When you say, opinion piece, the first opinion piece in the article is the USAToday one, called, opinion, and identified as such. If you want to talk about the Economist article from 2002 you should call it a new name, like, the economist link, or something along those lines because the OP already started an item with the name opinion piece.

The numbers in the opinion piece, are backed by the UN link, in the same post, the OP of this thread.

The Economist predicts differently and with older sources, seeing as how the UN report is a product of 2004 and the Economist is an article written before those results were released.


One, are honestly suggesting that everyone taking this poll is educated about the subject and the numbers, educated about statistical analysis? That's clearly unlikely. Two, are they all Europeans? Nope. Three, you really should learn about statistical analysis?

This thread is not about what is in existence today, it never was, no matter how much you keep trying to show what exists today. This thread is about peoples opinions about what will be in 2050 or after. My first post was talking about my personal predictions for three generations. However, I used 2050 in the poll because that's the numbers used for the UN predictions and the opinion piece quoted and linked to in the OP.

Therefore, it is entirely irrelevant for the voters in this poll to have any statistic analytical ability whatsoever. Fortune telling and tarot card would be just as valid an argument, just not as likely to be right (but right won't be known for 44 more years, or three generations, depending on which of the two disagreements you wish to pose).


Um, appeals to popularity is a logical fallacy. Your own statistical source (clearly more reliable than the general opinion of the people voting in this thread) disagrees with the conclusion. If the source is flawed, why did you post it? Even worse, than an appeal to popularity is the fact that you are pretending the voters said something they didn't. Not helping people take you seriously.

You are such a funny fellow, you take yourself far too seriously. Which part of 'predicting the future' are you having trouble with the most? Perhaps we should send you some sci-fi books to help you better understand the concept that you/we/everyone, doesn't HAVE to be based on 'provable' minutiae.



Yes, it's only the third time I've posted it. I'm sorry if you're having difficulty reading my posts. I know how painful it is to be shown to be inconsistent over and over again by me and my ilk.

That would work better as soon as you start identifying your topics properly and discussing the same topic as the thread ~ let us know when you start.

If being a REAL Christian requires one to trample the civil rights of others then I think you're right. 'Christianity' is in decline in Europe. ...


And since this and the rest of you post goes into yet more and more off topic and unrelated balderdash crap about who said what about who's religion I'll ignore it.


If following the principles of Christ is less important to you than church attendance and forcing your beliefs on others and makes one less of a Christian in your eyes, then I hope I'm never a 'good Christian' in your eyes.

Nice meaningless personal attack there fella, not exactly called for and out of place in this thread now isn’t it?

And you wonder why I call you jackass and object to your troll baiting posts in threads like this, you try to divert original topics from whatever it is to whatever nonsensical topic you want it to be so you can post attacks against me personally. Jackass.

There is no good or evil. There is only the strong and the weak. Whoever is strong will dictate what is right(good) and what is wrong(evil), and the weak have no choice but to accept those set values.

:rolleyes: If you knew anything about Nietzsche, you'd know he was very critical of German nationalism and chauvinism. If the "aryan race" is so close to being destroyed by other races, then it is most definitely not the master race. If anything, that reasoning would make the Jews the master race since they are far less numerous yet are supposedly so close to taking over the world.

Superiority in an evolutionary sense doesn't mean having The Ring of the Nibelungen operas or the coolest cars. It means being able to outdo competitors, even if that means relying on brute strength and rape or schemes for world domination. If other races are defeating the "aryan race", then why aren't they superior?

:rolleyes: If you knew anything about Nietzsche, you'd know he was very critical of German nationalism and chauvinism. If the "aryan race" is so close to being destroyed by other races, then it is most definitely not the master race. If anything, that reasoning would make the Jews the master race since they are far less numerous yet are supposedly so close to taking over the world.

In that regard, Neitzsche is right, he must have gotten lucky, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Nietzsche is a dork :p

Superiority in an evolutionary sense doesn't mean having The Ring of the Nibelungen operas or the coolest cars. It means being able to outdo competitors, even if that means relying on brute strength and rape or schemes for world domination. If other races are defeating the "aryan race", then why aren't they superior?

They are, you are correct, thus,...

/sign :)


EDIT: However, who are you quoting there? How did they not say the same thing?

EDIT: However, who are you quoting there? How did they not say the same thing?

I was replying to that Strasse guy.

EDIT: However, who are you quoting there? How did they not say the same thing?

I was replying to that Strasse guy.

I've discovered your problem... the opinion piece, is the opinion piece linked with the UN .pdf link, the OP of this thread. The Economist is a different link and a different source. When you say, opinion piece, the first opinion piece in the article is the USAToday one, called, opinion, and identified as such. If you want to talk about the Economist article from 2002 you should call it a new name, like, the economist link, or something along those lines because the OP already started an item with the name opinion piece.

Except the first post starting this line of discussion was a reply to the posting of that piece. My problem was that I assumed you were following the line of conversation. Since you appear to not be, I'll post it here.

The young world and the old
Higher fertility rates and immigration produce not only a larger population but a society that is younger, more mixed ethnically and, on balance, more dynamic. The simplest expression of this is median age (by definition, half of the population is older than the median age, and half younger). According to Bill Frey, a demographer at the University of Michigan, the median age in America in 2050 will be 36.2. In Europe it will be 52.7. That is a stunning difference, accounted for almost entirely by the dramatic ageing of the European population. At the moment, the median age is 35.5 in America and 37.7 in Europe. In other words, the difference in the median age is likely to rise from two to 17 years by 2050.
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1291056

Europe is dying of old age and neglect, I submit that they will not disappear but be replaced by non-traditional western Europeans, and with that in mind, I evaluate that the Muslim community in Europe will continue to grow while the rest of it ages and decreases in actual numbers, not just percentage of the population.

Three generations is my guess, as stated over and over again, this thread is not about stopping the Muslims, it's about discussing why the Europeans are dying off, and I'm blaming it on the general lack of community health that developed from too much Atheism, Secularism and Humanism.

THAT's the topic, not that there are more Christians now or not, but what will be there when they grow old and haven't replaced themselves.

BTW: where did you get the 30% Catholics in 2050 from?

Did you get tired of us always showing up your sources so you decided to start doing it yourself? Your own source has the most conservative projection putting Europe over 550 Million. How do you justify 360M? How about a non-editorial source that list it's sources? At least the UN source posts the actual information instead of a bunch of ridiculous assumptions.

Here's your source from the first page, placing the population between 550M and 760M. You know when you post two sources that disagree so dramatically one of them must be wrong.

Tired of showing up my sources? You mean the UN estimates and the individual country census estimates and the Economist estimates and all the other population estimates that say the same thing are somehow flawed because I posted a link to them here? What a dumbass

Actually, I said they weren't flawed. I said you knew source that TOTALLY contradicts the UN source is wrong. I'm sorry that wasn't clear to you. I suppose talking about the UN source and mentioning that it was a reasonable source wasn't setting off any "Oh, I see" bells, huH?

Does that help? I didn't realize that you were going to lose the flow of the conversation in three posts.

The numbers in the opinion piece, are backed by the UN link, in the same post, the OP of this thread.

The Economist predicts differently and with older sources, seeing as how the UN report is a product of 2004 and the Economist is an article written before those results were released.

So why post the Economist article at all when it's numbers don't agree with numbers you already endorsed? You get mad about this, but this is why people keep telling you to pick better sources. If you select sources that are lightyears apart on supporting facts then it just appears that you'll post anything that agrees with you no matter how ridiculous the reasoning. I really hurts your argument.

This thread is not about what is in existence today, it never was, no matter how much you keep trying to show what exists today. This thread is about peoples opinions about what will be in 2050 or after. My first post was talking about my personal predictions for three generations. However, I used 2050 in the poll because that's the numbers used for the UN predictions and the opinion piece quoted and linked to in the OP.

What is in existence today and the trends of today is what we use to make projections. It's not randomly picking a number. It's look at the available data and make a scientific extrapolation supported with real evidence. You seem to think that all predictions are equally valid. It's simply not true. Some outcomes are more likely than others.

If I said I was going to flip a coin a million times, one could say that the outcome would be all heads, but obviously the far more likely outcome would a nearly equal number of heads and tails with a statistical level of error.

And the opinion piece which cites no sources is TOTALLY disagreeing with the UN projections, yet you used it as a source. I pointed out they disagree by a HUGE margin and that one of them is using statistical analysis in the predictions and one is just pulling crap out of the dirty canyon.

Therefore, it is entirely irrelevant for the voters in this poll to have any statistic analytical ability whatsoever. Fortune telling and tarot card would be just as valid an argument, just not as likely to be right (but right won't be known for 44 more years, or three generations, depending on which of the two disagreements you wish to pose).

Yes, you're right. There is no possible way to analyse statistics and trends and make a scientifically valid prediction of the future. No possible way at all. /Sarcasm.

The UN predictions gives a series of predictions with room for error. They have traditionally been fairly accurate and when slightly off have been conservative in showing slightly less growth. Your opinion piece without any real evidence gives It's not fortune-telling. It's a statistical prediction based on evidence. The fact that you offer no value to actual scientific practice doesn't mean that people aren't going to keep entering your threads and using it to debunk your assertions.

You are such a funny fellow, you take yourself far too seriously. Which part of 'predicting the future' are you having trouble with the most? Perhaps we should send you some sci-fi books to help you better understand the concept that you/we/everyone, doesn't HAVE to be based on 'provable' minutiae.

I do? I'm not the one who swears and calls people names in half their posts. Disagreeing with you and using evidence is merely supporting my argument. I guess I didn't realize that you were posting something you view to be equivalent to a work of fiction. Accepted. I wish you would have said you were making a fictional prediction in the first post. It would have saved time.

That would work better as soon as you start identifying your topics properly and discussing the same topic as the thread ~ let us know when you start.

I am talking about the topic of the thread, unless you're actually claiming the OP and the poll have nothing to do with one another. You're making a series of predictions all linked to one another and I'm merely showing that they rely on faulty evidence and don't agree with current trends or anything that can be extrapolated from current evidence.

In the future I suppose I'll have to post the entire string of the conversation, because you seem to lose what was said as soon as it leaves the page.

You make claims about the topic of the thread, but I'm am pointing out the flaws in the evidence for your predictions. That is VERY MUCH on topic. However, since you've now admitted that you are not actually bases this on evidence and you consider this to have the same requirements as science fiction, I realize you never intended for anyone to take this seriously. I'm pretty sure there's a name for putting up contentious opinions that are works of fiction.

And since this and the rest of you post goes into yet more and more off topic and unrelated balderdash crap about who said what about who's religion I'll ignore it.

You claimed that you define what Christians are rather than they themselves, I merely linked all of your views on Christianity together. I think they are very relevant since you've just admitted that for your prediction to be true you rely on not counting certain Christians in your numbers.

Nice meaningless personal attack there fella, not exactly called for and out of place in this thread now isn’t it?

Just tying your various ideas on Christianity and what constitutes secular together. Your opinions don't all stand alone. Your opinions on how you judge whether someone is a Christian are very relevant since you seem to say that you don't deem some people who call themselves Christians as Christian. Do I need to quote you saying that? How you view self-identifying Christians is very relevant since you appear not to count them in your predictions. I am addressing my opinion on those beliefs which made a part of the conversation when you said people don't properly identify themselves as Christians.

I didn't post anything that can't be found in your posts in this and other threads. I was talking about the beliefs you espouse, not you personally. Of all people, I'd think you'd know what a personal attack is since you just called me a dumbass and a troll. See those are personal attacks. You make another one in the next part of your post. Pointing out that your beliefs are not my beliefs is just a fact. Calling people names, suggesting they are unable to read, etc. is what constitutes a personal attack. If you don't want people to give opinions on your beliefs don't post them on this board. When you bring them up for debate, expect people to express opinion and present evidence regarding them.

And you wonder why I call you jackass and object to your troll baiting posts in threads like this, you try to divert original topics from whatever it is to whatever nonsensical topic you want it to be so you can post attacks against me personally. Jackass.

Oh, look, you called me a jackass twice. See now that is a personal attack. See this example next time you're trying to figure out if I attacked you or your views.

HEY GREENLANDER

Maybe you should calm down before you get into trouble again. Cause if i recal, you were warned about calling people names and stuff before on these forums by Euroslavia. Just calm down for once and stop calling people names.

And you wonder why I call you jackass and object to your troll baiting posts in threads like this, you try to divert original topics from whatever it is to whatever nonsensical topic you want it to be so you can post attacks against me personally. Jackass.Greenlander, your name-calling diverts attention from the original topic. I appreciate that you've managed to keep a civil tone throughout most of this thread, but:

I will remind you that flaming is against forum rules, and that you have been warned about this before. Keep it up and you'll be looking at a temporary forum ban.

…
So why post the Economist article at all when it's numbers don't agree with numbers you already endorsed? You get mad about this, but this is why people keep telling you to pick better sources. If you select sources that are lightyears apart on supporting facts then it just appears that you'll post anything that agrees with you no matter how ridiculous the reasoning. I really hurts your argument.

Multiple sources that do the same thing, they are far ranging predictions of the future of Europe and Europeans, they don’t have to agree with me, in fact, none of them agree with my assertion that Muslims would/will take over the majority block. As such though, as predictions, they both belong in this thread and posting links to them does not detract from my argument because its not that type of argument. (I’ve been reading other predictions as well, there’s tons of them. Of course, I haven’t found any that say what you say, that’s not essential, but it explains why you aren’t linking to any supports to your claims.)


... However, since you've now admitted that you are not actually bases this on evidence and you consider this to have the same requirements as science fiction, I realize you never intended for anyone to take this seriously. I'm pretty sure there's a name for putting up contentious opinions that are works of fiction.

Needless and pointless jabs. The Jacobia way of spitting in a person's face and getting away with it. You assert insult after insult and insert pompous impudence wherever you can, you disrespect others because of what you call their ‘types’ of views and you mock and ridicule until you've done it enough times that you get someone to punch you in the nose for it (or here, verbally call you a name) and THEN you run off to the moderation forum screaming for help claiming you've been wrongly assaulted.


You claimed that you define what Christians are rather than they themselves, I merely linked all of your views on Christianity together. I think they are very relevant since you've just admitted that for your prediction to be true you rely on not counting certain Christians in your numbers.

I did no such thing. I said answering “Christian” in a European census survey may be like answering Hispanic in an American census survey, without asking three more question afterwards it doesn’t really tell us much. You can turn it into another slab of insult and belittling attempt all you want, but it’s not what I said, and thus, that makes you a liar.

Continued from above:
… I didn't post anything that can't be found in your posts in this and other threads. I was talking about the beliefs you espouse, not you personally.

Bullshit. You were doing more spitting.

I was replying to that Strasse guy.
I just wanna make sure you know that that guy is not German by a long shot. A while back he started a Holocaust-Denial Thread. Germans don't do that sort of thing - and if they do, they go to jail.

i said it before and i'll say it again, if only because i feel it bears repeating. the only thing that will ever kill REAL european culture is the same pseudochristian fanatacism that has already destroyed america.

mom and pop craftufacturing and an abundance of public transportation, much of it by rail, are what makes europe europe and an attractive destination to visit. no single form of idiology, economics or belief otherwise has diddly to do with it.

=^^=
.../\...

I just wanna make sure you know that that guy is not German by a long shot. A while back he started a Holocaust-Denial Thread. Germans don't do that sort of thing - and if they do, they go to jail.
Who arrests them? Gestapo II? :rolleyes:

Multiple sources that do the same thing, they are far ranging predictions of the future of Europe and Europeans, they don’t have to agree with me, in fact, none of them agree with my assertion that Muslims would/will take over the majority block. As such though, as predictions, they both belong in this thread and posting links to them does not detract from my argument because its not that type of argument. (I’ve been reading other predictions as well, there’s tons of them. Of course, I haven’t found any that say what you say, that’s not essential, but it explains why you aren’t linking to any supports to your claims.)

Because you didn't click my links doesn't mean I didn't put them there. Feel free to go back a couple pages and examine them. Also, mostly I used your sources. The only source you've provided that supports your claims is completely opinion and disagrees with the only statistical source you've provided. There is no evidence that Europe is denying and one can't reach the logical conclusion that Muslims will be in the majority from any evidence anywhere.

Needless and pointless jabs. The Jacobia way of spitting in a person's face and getting away with it. You assert insult after insult and insert pompous impudence wherever you can, you disrespect others because of what you call their ‘types’ of views and you mock and ridicule until you've done it enough times that you get someone to punch you in the nose for it (or here, verbally call you a name) and THEN you run off to the moderation forum screaming for help claiming you've been wrongly assaulted.

I find it unfortunate if verbal sparring to you requires name-calling. Feel free to attack my arguments, but attacking me personally is not allowed. It doesn't help your argument and it hurts your credibility. Let's not pretend like either of us likes the other. Let's not pretend like either of us believes the other is correct or isn't as assertive as we can be in pointing out our disagreement. However, only one of us is calling the other names. If being contradicted makes you want to call people names then perhaps you should be involved in so many debates.

You constantly defend your name-calling, which incidentally is reserved for me. Do you know how many people I've reported for calling me names in the past several months? Just you. Do you know how many people have called me names? Just you. How many people have you called names in the past several months? Not just me. What's the common factor? Your inability to stop with the name-calling. Pretend like I caused it all you like, but you'd do better to take responsibility for your actions.

Now back to the point - did you or did you not say that I shouldn't be putting so much pressure on evidence that this is the equivalent of science fiction? Nevermind I'll quote you. That you find it offensive means you should not have said it. I'm not going to let something like suggesting that expecting evidence and a modicrum of proper analysis of your sources is unfair slide no matter how much it angers you to have me point out how ridiculous such a statement is.

Perhaps we should send you some sci-fi books to help you better understand the concept that you/we/everyone, doesn't HAVE to be based on 'provable' minutiae.

Yep, you claim here that I shouldn't be so uptight in expecting more evidence than you average sci-fi book has. I'm sorry that pointing out that you just called your predictions fiction is offensive to you, but you said it, not I.

I did no such thing. I said answering “Christian” in a European census survey may be like answering Hispanic in an American census survey, without asking three more question afterwards it doesn’t really tell us much. You can turn it into another slab of insult and belittling attempt all you want, but it’s not what I said, and thus, that makes you a liar.

Are you are you not claiming that they are not Christians even though they self-identified as such?

Bullshit. You were doing more spitting.
This is a debate and if you don't wish for people to point how you contradict yourself or your sources don't agree or how the sum total of your opinions offered on this forum suggest your agenda, then perhaps you shouldn't offer up said opinions.

As long as there are opinions, there are counter-opinions and most of your offense at these opinions seems to be centered around the fact that they can be more easily validated than yours.

You claim I offer no evidence (despite that your sources agree with me and I've posted sources). You claim TCT offers too much evidence. And you claim that we should not expect any kind of reasonable statistical analysis to support your conclusions and that if statistical analysis disagrees with your conclusions then we're being too anal. Evidence is a part of debate. Particularly when you are making assertions. Don't be upset that people use all evidence you offer or have ever offered IN EVERY THREAD YOU ENTER to dispute your assertions.

So which is it? I shouldn't look at evidence or I should?

Um, appeals to popularity is a logical fallacy. Your own statistical source (clearly more reliable than the general opinion of the people voting in this thread) disagrees with the conclusion. If the source is flawed, why did you post it? Even worse, than an appeal to popularity is the fact that you are pretending the voters said something they didn't. Not helping people take you seriously.
You are such a funny fellow, you take yourself far too seriously. Which part of 'predicting the future' are you having trouble with the most? Perhaps we should send you some sci-fi books to help you better understand the concept that you/we/everyone, doesn't HAVE to be based on 'provable' minutiae

Of course, I haven’t found any that say what you say, that’s not essential, but it explains why you aren’t linking to any supports to your claims.)

You make the argument that evidence should not be required and then you claim that I'm not willing to provide evidence. Not very consistent.

Is your argument based on evidence or is it not? You say it is then when I point out that your evidence does not agree, you get mad. You say it isn't any more than sci-fi requires evidence and when I say then I'll give it the same level of credibilty of sci-fi, you get mad.

If your argument is 'supported' by evidence, expect that evidence to get analyzed and expect someone to point it out if it doesn't support your point. If your argument isn't 'supported' by evidence then expect people to treat it as such. It's that simple. Choose a path and stay on it and don't get upset when people try to show your assertions as wrong. That's what debate is.

Meanwhile, you continue to get upset that I reported your flaming to moderation, but you ignored my points. I agree with you. Let's get back to the discussion.

Are you or are you not claiming that Europe is going to shrink in size? Are you or are you not claiming that people who self-identify as Christians are not Christians (this is core to whether Christians are in the majority or not)? Are you or are you not claiming that the lack of Christianity is the reason why it is shrinking? Are you or are you not suggesting that Christianity will fall away in the face of Atheism? Are you or are you not claiming that secularism and atheism are the same thing?

All simple yes or no questions. Answer them and we'll go from there.

Who arrests them? Gestapo II? :rolleyes:
Nope, just the normal Police.

Then they go to court, where a billion things have to be proven for this specific law to take effect.

Then a Neonazi goes to jail. All the better, because he's one less bastard needing his face kicked in.

Nope, just the normal Police.

Then they go to court, where a billion things have to be proven for this specific law to take effect.

Then a Neonazi goes to jail. All the better, because he's one less bastard needing his face kicked in.
Not all deniers are Neonazis...

Not all deniers are Neonazis...
Oh yes, all of them are, in one way or another.
And I count Ahmadinejad as one of them - if there is war and we get our hands on him, I'd expect him to be charged with Holocaust Denial and thrown into jail.

Oh yes, all of them are, in one way or another.
And I count Ahmadinejad as one of them - if there is war and we get our hands on him, I'd expect him to be charged with Holocaust Denial and thrown into jail.
He may be a neonazi...but others aren't necessarily.

Oh yes, all of them are, in one way or another.
And I count Ahmadinejad as one of them - if there is war and we get our hands on him, I'd expect him to be charged with Holocaust Denial and thrown into jail.

All kinds of people fall for conspiracy theories, so I don't think you have to be a Nazi to be a Holocaust denier.

That law is pretty stupid in my opinion. All it will accomplish is to create "martyrs" and even reinforce the belief of the deniers.

All kinds of people fall for conspiracy theories, so I don't think you have to be a Nazi to be a Holocaust denier.
I don't think so. In my opinion, for someone to consciously deny that the Holocaust happened means that person has a definite agenda, and that doesn't include "Yeah, it's like the JFK assassination, I'm not gonna believe the establishment on this one either". I don't think it works that way. I mean, I can't even imagine what would drive a person to start doubting that it happened. I've read and seen and heard so much about it, and it was so very horrible, why would I even have any motivation to start doubting that it happened, if not for ideological reasons?

That law is pretty stupid in my opinion. All it will accomplish is to create "martyrs" and even reinforce the belief of the deniers.
Don't agree on this one, either. IMO, it is needed to show that denying the Holocaust is indeed a very serious matter, not something that can be happily propagated by simply pointing to "freedom of speech".

Simply denying the holocaust is practising one's right to freedom of speech...I disagree that one should be imprisoned because of it.

Simply denying the holocaust is practising one's right to freedom of speech...I disagree that one should be imprisoned because of it.
Well, importantly, the denial has to be made publicly, in a way that is considered by the courts to be agitation.

But apart from that...holocaust denial is not an issue of free speech, it is an issue of maliciously spreading a lie with enormous political background and consequences.
Particularly in Germany that is a sensitive matter (see where "Free Speech" got us in Weimar), and quite frankly, Wheredoyouthinkyouregoing is right - everyone who denies the Holocaust has an underlying agenda of hate, and IMHO needs to be dealt with.

Well, importantly, the denial has to be made publicly, in a way that is considered by the courts to be agitation.

But apart from that...holocaust denial is not an issue of free speech, it is an issue of maliciously spreading a lie with enormous political background and consequences.
Particularly in Germany that is a sensitive matter (see where "Free Speech" got us in Weimar), and quite frankly, Wheredoyouthinkyouregoing is right - everyone who denies the Holocaust has an underlying agenda of hate, and IMHO needs to be dealt with.
People are afraid to convict a pastor who suggested that gay people are a cancer to society, yet simply denying the holocaust is hate speech...:rolleyes: Umm...right. So what underlying agenda do people who exaggerate the Holocaust have then?

everyone who denies the Holocaust has an underlying agenda of hate, and IMHO needs to be dealt with.
I agree. However I disagree that they should be inhibited from saying that. Thats the point of free speech isn't it? Free speech isn't just "you can say whatever you want as long as everyone agrees with it and t doesn't piss anyone off".

I agree. However I disagree that they should be inhibited from saying that. Thats the point of free speech isn't it? Free speech isn't just "you can say whatever you want as long as everyone agrees with it and t doesn't piss anyone off".
Exactly. And denying the holocaust is not incitement of hatred. People are willing to pass off far worse things as within the ambit of free speech, yet they find this a particular problem. :rolleyes:

and same thing for the homophobic preist. If he wants to say it, it's his right and he should be defended by all those gun nuts keeping their weapons for just such an occasion

People are afraid to convict a pastor who suggested that gay people are a cancer to society, yet simply denying the holocaust is hate speech...:rolleyes:
I wasn't. I wanted the guy punished, and banned from his profession.

Umm...right. So what underlying agenda do people who exaggerate the Holocaust have then?
Okay...who exaggerates the Holocaust? The numbers are known. The Nazis kept everything on record.

But for those that do...I have no idea what agenda they might have. The Holocaust can hardly be considered any worse, nor has it led to favourable treatment for anyone but the surviving victims.
However, the opposite does have implications. It attempts to legitimise Nazi rule, it aims at denying that the Jews have suffered particularly throughout history and especially in this case and ultimately always legitimises Nazi anti-semitism in particular.
Those who deny the Holocaust do no more than try to disprove that anti-semitism is a slippery slope by denying its consequences. And IMHO, those people themselves actually don't mind all these people getting killed, they just try to make their own ideals more marketable to the moderate masses.

This is hardly grounds to place a ban on their right to free speech though...Unless they are directly and explicitly inciting hatred, there is no justification for it. With the case of the priest, one could argue his incitements is of a more direct nature.

The other thing is, that punishing holocaust deniers may lead to other people making use of freedom of speech being punished, until the whole concept evaporates altogether.

Quite frankly I feel that any natzi that wants can get up onto a podium and say that the holocaust didn't happen.

I think its our responsibility as a civilised society to make sure that there is a person on a podium across from him saying it didn't happen waving around the documents that prove it.

It would even be healthy to have a third podium with someone saying that nothing ever happens at all...

And a fourth saying that jews are martians and natzis are saturnians or something random

Quite frankly I feel that any natzi that wants can get up onto a podium and say that the holocaust didn't happen.

I think its our responsibility as a civilised society to make sure that there is a person on a podium across from him saying it didn't happen waving around the documents that prove it.

It would even be healthy to have a third podium with someone saying that nothing ever happens at all...

And a fourth saying that jews are martians and natzis are saturnians or something random
Yep. Simply censoring what we don't like hearing won't help root out a problem...it merely hides it under the carpet, until it becomes too big to handle. Via the free exchange of ideas though, baseless ranting can be refuted and uprooted effectively. The only case in which censorship should be evoked is when speech is of a particularly hateful nature, as in it incites hatred.

You guys need to think outside the box instead of automatically jumping to "oh we need more laws, more sensorship, more stuff the bueracracy can get tangled up in"

In America, we dont need any dumb laws that limit freedom of speech because if someone goes out and denys the holocaust and preaches anti semitism, they are looked upon as insane by 99% of our population, including the government. So, in a sense they are commiting social suicide, will probably get jumped by a bunch of hassidic Jews, and all without the government doing anything about it.

See how things work themselves out?

You guys need to think outside the box instead of automatically jumping to "oh we need more laws, more sensorship, more stuff the bueracracy can get tangled up in"

In America, we dont need any dumb laws that limit freedom of speech because if someone goes out and denys the holocaust and preaches anti semitism, they are looked upon as insane by 99% of our population, including the government. So, in a sense they are commiting social suicide, will probably get jumped by a bunch of hassidic Jews, and all without the government doing anything about it.

See how things work themselves out?
Precisely. Only in the most extreme cases is censorship truly needed.

Er...never heard of the moors? Islam already had a huge influence on "European Culture" (not that there actually is such a thing)

I don't recall anyone saying, "Islam has never influenced Europe before." I think you just brought up the moors to try and sound smart.

It seemed like some people got 'tudes about this topic right away and were all like, "Uh! So WHAT? Is it supposed to be a BAD thing?" (although, nobody actually said THAT). The guy was just talking about a trend. He wasn't rallying against the "Muslim Invasion".

Precisely. Only in the most extreme cases is censorship truly needed.

Yeah, I swear....some Europeans are just like cattle....they need government to do everything for them....HAVE SOME FREAKING FAITH IN THE PEOPLE

Yeah, I swear....some Europeans are just like cattle....they need government to do everything for them....HAVE SOME FREAKING FAITH IN THE PEOPLE
Even if the government does do something, that won't solve the problem...it might even aggravate it (like the prohibition of alcohol did in the USA).

Even if the government does do something, that won't solve the problem...it might even aggravate it (like the prohibition of alcohol did in the USA).

Yup

Personally, I dont like holocaust deniers, but that does not mean we should silence them like we are afraid of them or like they speak the truth the government doesnt want the masses to hear, no, I have faith in my fellow Americans that they will see past the bullshit that the holocaust deniers speak.

I don't recall anyone saying, "Islam has never influenced Europe before." I think you just brought up the moors to try and sound smart.

It seemed like some people got 'tudes about this topic right away and were all like, "Uh! So WHAT? Is it supposed to be a BAD thing?" (although, nobody actually said THAT). The guy was just talking about a trend. He wasn't rallying against the "Muslim Invasion".

Thank you. You are exactly correct as to my original intentions.

Are you or are you not claiming that Europe is going to shrink in size?
The topic is European population:

Population growth rates are negative in many European countries, including Russia (-0.6%), Estonia (-0.5%), Hungary (-0.4%), and Ukraine (-0.4%).
http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm
Europe's population 'to plummet'
Europe's population is set to shrink, mainly because women are having children later, researchers suggest.
If this continues until 2020, they say it could lead to at least 88m fewer people living in the EU in 2100, assuming constant levels of mortality and no significant effects of migration.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2895109.stm
As of 2000 the European population was about 375 million. If current marriage and birth trends continue, Europe's population fall below 300 million by the end of the century.
http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2003/000021.html
This means that 44 million workers will have to be imported by the European Union by 2050, according to Eurostat, the European Statistics Agency.
http://english.pravda.ru/society/2001/04/10/3472.html



Are you or are you not claiming that people who self-identify as Christians are not Christians (this is core to whether Christians are in the majority or not)?

No.

Are you or are you not claiming that the lack of Christianity is the reason why it is shrinking?

I did not.

Are you or are you not suggesting that Christianity will fall away in the face of Atheism?

No. I said Muslims would out pace the secularists.

Are you or are you not claiming that secularism and atheism are the same thing?

No. They are simply grouped together for simplicity of review.

All simple yes or no questions. Answer them and we'll go from there.

Answered, don’t bother going on from there until you can admit that the European population is predicted to actually decline (not slow growth, which you keep saying) according to multiple credible sources and you can stay on topic. The fundamental building block of this thread is about What Happens, when the Europeans continue to decline… Secularist, Muslims, Christians, or other, “who and what group becomes the primary voting force of the European Countries or the EU” (if it should ever become something more than a failed Constitution ‘almost’ as it is today).

Answered, don’t bother going on from there until you can admit that the European population is predicted to actually decline (not slow growth, which you keep saying) according to multiple credible sources and you can stay on topic. The fundamental building block of this thread is about What Happens, when the Europeans continue to decline… Secularist, Muslims, Christians, or other, “who and what group becomes the primary voting force of the European Countries or the EU” (if it should ever become something more than a failed Constitution ‘almost’ as it is today).

Well you can already see that nationalist parties get some seats in certain places due to the fear of the declining pop/growing immigrant population. Now I really don't think that if Muslims surpass Christians or people who want a secular government that they will try to institute their religion/destroy the european culture. Sure there are some crazies in Europe but there are always crazies everywhere in the world and you don't see the KKK winning any senate seats(at least not anymore). Culture wise I think Europeans will try to preserve their culture, be apathetic and do nothing, or perhaps mix with the incomming immigrants. The only problem I could see would be a extremely reactionary attempt to preserve the European culture.

I don't know how things will turn out in Europe, but so far it's looking pretty grim so far. Birth rates are rapidly plummeting, a major factor in this being the corrosive influences of radical feminism and homosexuality that have took hold over our society over the last century. And to meet the shortfall, our wonderful governments have decided to let muslims in. Look where that got Britain - terrorism, increases in crime (With a disproportionate amount of it being commited by guess who) and once proud industrial towns being turned into Little Islamabad.

The idea that second and third generation muslims are becoming more secular is farcical. In Britain it's the younger generation of muslims who are flocking to extreme backward wahabbi sects, often against their parents wishes. Also look at France, hardly an example of people of all communities living in perfect harmony.

I'm agnostic myself as I haven't seen any proof of a god. But I see a lot of good in the traditional values of christianity, such as the emphasis on the traditional family and on the community. Christianity has been a cornerstone of communities across Europe, and while not overtly religious like many Americans, christianity remains a major part of European culture. While I wouldn't want to see our society falling into radical religious fervour, I think it would be a shame to completely leave these ideas beind. Though a lot of christian churches themselves, in Britain at least, have almost completely left these ideas behind and slipped into the usual trendy ideas of gay marriages and the wishy washy 'inter-faith dialogue' crap. But despite this, I couldn't see the nominally christian population suddenly converting to islam. In my experince most western converts tend to be complete basket cases who have more issues than your local newsagents.

I think the danger of islam comes from the increasing number of immigrants who move to our society and have children at far higher rates than the native population. If it goes on like this, and our spineless governments carry on letting our countries become colonised in the time honoured fashion then it's very possible that Eurabia could become a reality.

Though speaking as somebody who lived most of my life in a formerly industrial northern English town with a large muslim population, it's not all doom and gloom. In my experince, most of the people who go on about how multiculturalism has enriched our society don't usually have much of a clue about reality. Most of them live in the kind of area where the only muslim they come into contact with is the one who serves them at the local curry house. If the islamic problem in this country gets rapidly worse then I think that it's possible that there could be a nationalist awakening among disaffected people who are fed up of seeing the cultural destruction of their communities. Some European countries have seen promise in this way, such as Denmark, Austria, the Netherlands and the Flemish areas of Belgium

One thing's for sure, something has to be done, we can't keep carrying on like this. If we don't want to be under the whip hand of islam, then something needs to be done fast. And we can't trust our pathetic governments to do it for us. This is something that the people of christian Europe have to do for themselves.

Yup

Personally, I dont like holocaust deniers, but that does not mean we should silence them like we are afraid of them or like they speak the truth the government doesnt want the masses to hear, no, I have faith in my fellow Americans that they will see past the bullshit that the holocaust deniers speak.
Hey, I have 100% confidence that Germans will not follow anyone like that. But it is disrespectful to the victims, it is an act that only desires to hurt others, commited by people who I would punch if I met them on the street.
This law has been around for many years, and it has not resulted in any less freedom of speech in European countries. There was no slippery slope there.

And finally...your concept of the "Free Market of Ideas", where the best ideas are supposed to win, and stupid things are simply laughed off has failed before, in Weimar Germany.

Birth rates are rapidly plummeting, a major factor in this being the corrosive influences of radical feminism and homosexuality that have took hold over our society over the last century.
Not really all that rapidly, but anyways..."corrosive influences"? What are you on?

And to meet the shortfall, our wonderful governments have decided to let muslims in. Look where that got Britain - terrorism, increases in crime (With a disproportionate amount of it being commited by guess who) and once proud industrial towns being turned into Little Islamabad.
Why don't you shave your head then and go bash them?

The idea that second and third generation muslims are becoming more secular is farcical.
Nobody said that...the contention was merely that second- and third-generation immigrants change their lifestyles according to their environment. In the Turkish or Arab countryside, having many kids is a good thing. In Western Europe it isn't, and so they don't have as many. Religion has nothing to do with it - if it did, Italy's birthrates wouldn't be so low.

Though a lot of christian churches themselves, in Britain at least, have almost completely left these ideas behind and slipped into the usual trendy ideas of gay marriages and the wishy washy 'inter-faith dialogue' crap.
What's wrong with religious leaders talking to each other rather than beating the snot out of people with sticks, stones and swords?

If it goes on like this, and our spineless governments carry on letting our countries become colonised in the time honoured fashion then it's very possible that Eurabia could become a reality.
Whatever Europe will look like in the next fifty to a hundred years...it'll be something completely new. As Europeans change, so do the cultures of immigrants, and they merge into something new.
It's not like it never happened before.

If the islamic problem in this country gets rapidly worse then I think that it's possible that there could be a nationalist awakening amound disaffected people who are fed up of seeing the cultural destruction of their communities. Some European countries have seen promise in this way, such as Denmark, Austria, the Netherlands and the Flemish areas of Belgium
And what follows?
I can tell you one thing that might follow...are you aware of the concept of "Juche Socialism"?

This is something that the people of christian Europe have to do for themselves.
Sorry mate, but Christian Europe has superceded your type a long time ago.

I see again, you are contradicting your own source. Why are you posting sources that don't agree? It suggests you don't care whether a source is correct so long as it says what you want it to say. Doesn't really help your argument.

The topic is European population:
Interesting. I suppose you didn't mention sending missionaries in the first post and several posts since then. You never mentioned the secular society being a problem in Europe or anything about the Muslims taking over. Your posts throughout the thread have focused utterly on population so anyone mentioning religion is off-topic. Of course, that requires one not to notice the poll.

Population growth rates are negative in many European countries, including Russia (-0.6%), Estonia (-0.5%), Hungary (-0.4%), and Ukraine (-0.4%).
http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm
Europe's population 'to plummet'
Europe's population is set to shrink, mainly because women are having children later, researchers suggest.
If this continues until 2020, they say it could lead to at least 88m fewer people living in the EU in 2100, assuming constant levels of mortality and no significant effects of migration.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2895109.stm
As of 2000 the European population was about 375 million. If current marriage and birth trends continue, Europe's population fall below 300 million by the end of the century.
http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2003/000021.html
This means that 44 million workers will have to be imported by the European Union by 2050, according to Eurostat, the European Statistics Agency.
http://english.pravda.ru/society/2001/04/10/3472.html

No.

Good so we won't here that argument again. I'm happy to hear it, because a moment ago you said statistics on Christians was wrong because people were incorrectly self-identifying. Glad to see you're not claiming that anymore.

I did not.

Good so Christianity has nothing to do with it. So the ridiculous poll has nothing to do with this thread and merely served to pull the thread off-topic.

No. I said Muslims would out pace the secularists.

Huh? The secularists? Many muslims are secularists as are many Christians and many Hindus and pretty much everyone who believes in freedom of religion.

No. They are simply grouped together for simplicity of review.

Um, you can't group secular and Athiest because those that advocate a secular society are often of many different religions. I'm a Chrisian and couldn't think of anything better than a secular society. Many Muslims, Christians and other religions would agree.

Answered, don’t bother going on from there until you can admit that the European population is predicted to actually decline (not slow growth, which you keep saying) according to multiple credible sources and you can stay on topic. The fundamental building block of this thread is about What Happens, when the Europeans continue to decline… Secularist, Muslims, Christians, or other, “who and what group becomes the primary voting force of the European Countries or the EU” (if it should ever become something more than a failed Constitution ‘almost’ as it is today).

I didn't say slow growth. I used your UN source that shows Europe ranging from a 200M decline to a slight growth. As you said, we can't have an exact number because statistical analysis has to insert a margin of error, but the UN numbers do exactly that. I haven't disagreed with the UN numbers. However, their lowest projection has the population at over 550M.

However, they disagree with your new sources in that if everything remains constant they have Europe at about 606M.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPP2004/2004Highlights_finalrevised.pdf

Unless of course, you're admitting you posted a flawed source in the OP.

I couldn't be happier about a decline. Europe is overpopulated as is most of the world. I'm glad to see that somewhere in the world we aren't growing like a virus. A decrease in population is not the same as dying out. It means that they're finally adjusting to the limited resources. Again, I'm ecstatic. Hopefully, we'll see similar trends in the US, China, India and anywhere the population is growing at rate that more closely resembles a virus than a mammal.

Now, I see you also admit that the topic of discussion is not population but what religious group will be dominant in Europe in 2050. I agree. The flaw falls on the fact that you make flawed assumptions about the current state of affairs. This is why you have a poll choice that suggests a revival is necessary in order for Europe to remain primarily Christians. Unfortunately, current trends do not suggest Christianity will not be the primary religion in Europe in 2050. So it wouldn't require a revival, but merely status quo. That's what my sources showed and thus lookee, I am on topic and have been on topic since I entered the thread.

Thank you. It has now been revealed to us that you have no idea what you are talking about. You are a parrot, you keep repeating things you obviously don't understand.

According to the UN...Replacement Migration report for the European Union

Scenario I
Scenario I, the medium variant of the United Nations 1998 Revision, assumes an average net intake very close to 300 thousand migrants per year between 1995-2050, for a total of almost 16.4 migrants during the period. The medium variant projects that the total population of the 15 countries would briefly continue to grow until around 2005, by which time it would attain 376.5 million; from that point, it would start to decline at increasing speed, so that by 2050 some 331.3 million people would remain - a loss of 40.6 million persons in relation to 1995 and 45.2 million persons in relation to the projected peak level in 2005 (The results of the 1998 United Nations projections are shown in the annex tables).

This loss would be equivalent to the combined present population of the seven smallest members of the European Union, namely Austria, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg, Sweden and Portugal (see table IV.21). The European Union population, which in 1995 was some 100 million larger than that of the United States, in 2050 would have become smaller than the United States by about 20 million.

TABLE IV.21. POPULATION OF THE MEMBER COUNTRIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 1995 AND 2050, SCENARIO I (see link, page 1)

Scenario II
Scenario II, which is the medium variant with zero migration, uses the fertility and mortality assumptions of the medium variant of the 1998 Revision, but without any migration to the 15 countries of the European Union after 1995. In this scenario, the total population would start declining already after 2000 rather than five years later, and by 2050 it would be down to approximately 311 million, which is 20 million less than in scenario I. The population aged 15-64 would immediately start declining, dropping from 249 million in 1995 to 174 million in 2050. Thus, without migration, the working age population would be cut by 30 per cent rather then by 25 per cent as in scenario I. The population aged 65 or older would increase from 58 million in 1995 to 92 million in 2050, entailing a decline of the potential support
ratio to 1.9 in 2050, 0.1 less than projected in scenario I.

Scenario III
Scenario III keeps the size of the total population constant at its projected peak level of 372 million in 2000 (assuming no in-migration in the period 1995-2000). In order to keep the total population constant at that level, it would be necessary to have 47.4 million migrants between 2000 and 2050, an
average of 949,000 migrants per year. By 2050, out of a total population of 372 million, 61.6 million, or 16.5 per cent, would be post-2000 immigrants or their descendants. The potential support ratio in 2050 would be 2.2, which is only 0.2 point higher than in scenario I.

Scenario IV
Scenario IV keeps the size of the population aged 15-64 constant at its 1995 level of 249 million (which would be the maximum level that it would have ever reached in absence of post-1995 migration). In order to keep the working age population constant at that level, it would be necessary in fact to have 79.6 million migrants between 1995 and 2050, an average of 1.4 million migrants per year. Due to irregularities in the age structure of the population, the annual number of migrants required to keep the working-age population constant would first grow rapidly and then decline. It would peak in 2025-2030, with an annual number of net migrants in excess of 2.8 million. By 2050, out of a total population of 418.5 million, post-1995 immigrants and their descendents would be 107.7 million, or 25.7 per cent. The potential support ratio in 2050 according to this scenario would be significantly higher than in scenario I, (2.4 against 2.0) but the difference is modest compared to magnitude of the drop from the level of 4.3 in 1995.

Scenario V
Scenario V keeps the potential support ratio at its 1995 value of 4.3 persons aged 15-64 for each person aged 65 or older. In order to keep the potential support ratio constant at that level, it would be necessary for the European Union to have 701 million immigrants from 1995 to 2050, an average of 12.7 million per year. Also, as under scenario IV, the irregularities in the age structure of the population would cause fluctuations in the annual number of migrants required to keep the potential support ratio constant. The peak levels would be attained in 2030-2035, with 20.3 million net immigrants per year. By 2050, out United Nations Population Division, Replacement Migration 87 of a total population of 1.2 billion, 918 million, or about 75 per cent, would be post-1995 immigrants or their descendants.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/eu.pdf#search='european%20population%20declining' (.pdf warning 8 pages)


The UN has had lots of predictions, these are all older than the ones I used in the OP, but they are are the type the "Economist article" you seem to hate so much was using and thus, your argument that the economist pulled them out of the dark canyon or whatever other crap opinion hatred you spewed, is shown to be misplaced, you actually accused the UN numbers to be crap, only different UN numbers...

According to recent national estimates, the European Union had an average annual net migration of 857,000 persons from 1990 to 1998. Thus, the number of migrants needed to prevent a decline in the total population is roughly comparable to the level of migration in the 1990s. However, in order to prevent a decline of the working-age population, the annual number of migrants would need to nearly double in relation to recent experience. Figure IV.21 shows, for scenarios I, II, III and IV, the population of the European Union in 2050, indicating the share that are post-1995 migrants and their descendants.

The number of migrants necessary annually to keep the potential support ratio constant at its 1995 level would be 15 times greater than the net migration level in the 1990s. Towards the end of the period, i.e. by 2040-2050, the net annual number of migrants required by the European Union would be equivalent to half the world's annual population growth.

Interesting stuff, provided you're not Jacobia who's seem to be out to accomplish nothing in this thread but try and pretend that GL's religion and viewpoint somehow makes him a liar... :rolleyes:

As to the posit you have about saying I post to links that disagree with me, you fail to comprehend entirely don't you? They don't have to agree with each other, I didn't write any of them. They are what they are. I don't hide evidence simply because it doesn't illuminate the same things I do. You seem to suggest that you would withhold evidence and opinions from us if the tables were turned, withhold the stuff you don't agree with? Not exactly forthcoming of you now is it?

Another perspective of the available data:
In summary, these data support the thesis that ALL peoples of European descent are in a demographically perilous situation, and ALL need preservation. Those who claim otherwise are simply and objectively incorrect.
http://foster.20megsfree.com/410.htm

More verification of stats and predictions:

Today Europe's population is 725 million. The populations of 14 European nations are declining, and the declines are driven by powerful social values and trends that would be difficult for governments to reverse, were they inclined to try. The growth rates of the populations of the other European nations are at or near zero. So the European population is projected to be 600 million in 2050.

In developed countries, a birthrate of 2.1 children per woman is a replacement rate, producing population stability. Only Albania has that rate. Catholic Ireland's rate is 2.0, but the rates of the Catholic nations of Southern Europe are among Europe's lowest -- 1.2. The estimated European average is 1.34.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/11/ED294391.DTL


BTW: Also note: Jacobia seems completely incapable of fathoming that some organizations (and people) calculate “Europe” differently than other groups (and people) do. Thus he doesn’t understand how one can say something like 375m and another might say something like 725m. He has posted that he seems to think this means that one result disqualifies the other, but the truth is, as the rest of us know, that one group is measuring a different circumference of what it calls “Europe” than the other, such as, including Russia, or not (for example). The total estimate size should be compared with it’s own number, not the number from a different study, it’s apples to oranges. Ignore Jacobia’s endless ranting about that aspect of his comprehension failure.

As to the EU's average age increasing substantially higher than it is now...

United Nations demographic projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of virtually all European countries is likely to decline, largely as a result of low fertility and increased longevity. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of the population to historically high levels. The number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person will often be halved, from 4 or 5 to 2.
http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc00/edoc8798.htm

To continue to argue that the Economist article was somehow flawed, like Jacobia did when he didn't understand how they fit together, is nonsensical.

What this is saying is that the European's national average age medium (the age where half is older and half is younger) is going to be higher than ever in the history of humanity, in fact, it will possibly be higher than the anticipated (or average) life-span of humans only a few centuries ago.

As to the posit that I, Greenlander, am likely a religous nutcase posting crap out of my own ass... I submit, another point of view that is asking the same questions I am from the evidence we are seeing...

With the median age of Greeks, Italians, and Spaniards projected to exceed 50 by 2050—roughly one in three people will be 65 or over—the welfare states created in the wake of World War II plainly require drastic reform. Either today’s newborn Europeans will spend their working lives paying 75 percent tax rates or retirement and “free” health care will simply have to be abolished. Alternatively (or additionally), Europeans will have to tolerate more legal immigration.

But where will the new immigrants come from? It seems very likely that a high proportion will come from neighboring countries, and Europe’s fastest-growing neighbors today are predominantly if not wholly Muslim. A youthful Muslim society to the south and east of the Mediterranean is poised to colonize—the term is not too strong—a senescent Europe.

This prospect is all the more significant when considered alongside the decline of European Christianity. In the Netherlands, Britain, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark today, fewer than 1 in 10 people now attend church once a month or more. Some 52 percent of Norwegians and 55 percent of Swedes say that God does not matter to them at all. Although the social and sexual freedoms that matter to such societies are antithetical to Muslim fundamentalism, their religious tolerance leaves these societies weak in the face of fanaticism.
http://www.hooverdigest.org/043/ferguson2.html

This essay appeared in the New York Times on April 4, 2004.

Even European business reports are reporting similar fears... Although not as strongly as the UN reports do, the business surveys are predicting declining populations across Europe starting in 2025 and well before 2050 as I've been positing since the beginning.

The study found that the EU's new, Eastern members were already seeing their populations decrease. In 2004, the populations of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia were already on the decline.

By 2024 the populations of Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain will also have stopped growing and by 2050 Austria, Belgium, Britain, Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands will have begun to decline.
By mid-century, only Cyprus, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta and Sweden will still be seeing their populations grow.

Separately, a report released Thursday by the Council of Europe in Strasbourg found similar prospects for Europe's population, predicting that it would decline by more than a fifth by the middle of the century unless fertility rates improve sharply.
http://www.eubusiness.com/Factsfig/050408141452.9wk48ply

More mainstream opinion pieces asking the same questions I am...
(The Washington Post, June 15th 2005)
Quote From: The End of Europe

By Robert J. Samuelson

It's hard to be a great power if your population is shriveling. Europe's birthrates have dropped well below the replacement rate of 2.1 children for each woman of childbearing age. For Western Europe as a whole, the rate is 1.5. It's 1.4 in Germany and 1.3 in Italy. In a century -- if these rates continue -- there won't be many Germans in Germany or Italians in Italy. Even assuming some increase in birthrates and continued immigration, Western Europe's population grows dramatically grayer, projects the U.S. Census Bureau. Now about one-sixth of the population is 65 and older. By 2030 that would be one-fourth, and by 2050 almost one-third.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401340.html


I think over the last group of posts, I've sufficiently proved that even if you don't agree with me, you can't just accuse me of simply positing a religious/extremism point of view and puke a dismissal by referring to my religion and me personally, it’s a bullshit argument.

Thank you. It has now been revealed to us that you have no idea what you are talking about. You are a parrot, you keep repeating things you obviously don't understand.

So now, we're only talking about the EU. Because you were originally talking about Europe. I like you change your point whenever it suits you and pretend like the people who are stilling talking about your original point have no idea what they're talking about. Time for some quotes I see.

Not a single Western European country has a fertility rate sufficient to replace the current population, which demographers say requires 2.1 children per family. Germany, Russia, Spain, Poland and Italy all have rates of about 1.3 children, according to the U.N. The Czech Republic's is less than 1.2, and even Roman Catholic Ireland is at 1.9 children. (The U.S. rate, which has remained stable, is slightly more than 2 children per woman.)

Fifteen countries, "mostly located in Southern and Eastern Europe, have reached levels of fertility unprecedented in human history," according to the U.N.'s World Population Prospects 2004 revision.

As children grow scarce and longevity increases in Europe, the continent is becoming one vast Leisure World. By 2050, the U.N. projects, more than 40% of the people in Italy will be 60 or older. By mid-century, populations in 25 European nations will be lower than they are now; Russia will lose 31 million people, Italy 7.2 million, Poland 6.6 million and Germany 3.9 million. So Europe is abandoning religion, growing older, shrinking and slowly killing itself. These are signs of a society in eclipse - the Roman Empire writ large. Is this any model for America? ...

Hmmmm... now it specifically mentioned Russia, which is not a part of the EU. But hey, why bother sticking to the topic. Let's pretend like you were always talking about the EU so you can suggest I'm wrong... or how about not. We were talking about the entirety of Europe and let's stick to the subject, shall we?

So now sticking to your original source that discusses the entirety of Europe and not just the EU we see that the predictions which you admit are older are NOT pertinent. The overall predictions by the UN regarding population growth shows the population of Europe will decline exactly as I described it. YOUR SOURCE.

The UN has had lots of predictions, these are all older than the ones I used in the OP, but they are are the type the "Economist article" you seem to hate so much was using and thus, your argument that the economist pulled them out of the dark canyon or whatever other crap opinion hatred you spewed, is shown to be misplaced, you actually accused the UN numbers to be crap, only different UN numbers...

Um, did you read the sources of their tables? The data I referenced as crap, the data related to the population trends, that you now admitted was outdated was from where? Go ahead and look at the picture, I'll wait. It's the one marked with a 2.... that's right the US census bureau. And when the article makes its predictions it says right in the article that it is going against the data because it believes the data is inaccurate. The only problem is that more recent data shows they were full of crap. Now, would you like to misrepresent the source a little more. Go ahead. I don't mind correcting you. The data they referenced is from the US Census Bureau and extrapolating the data themselves (actively disagreeing with the claims made by the Census Bureau).

According to recent national estimates, the European Union had an average annual net migration of 857,000 persons from 1990 to 1998. Thus, the number of migrants needed to prevent a decline in the total population is roughly comparable to the level of migration in the 1990s. However, in order to prevent a decline of the working-age population, the annual number of migrants would need to nearly double in relation to recent experience. Figure IV.21 shows, for scenarios I, II, III and IV, the population of the European Union in 2050, indicating the share that are post-1995 migrants and their descendants.

The number of migrants necessary annually to keep the potential support ratio constant at its 1995 level would be 15 times greater than the net migration level in the 1990s. Towards the end of the period, i.e. by 2040-2050, the net annual number of migrants required by the European Union would be equivalent to half the world's annual population growth.

Of course, this only talks about the 15 nations that used to be part of the EU some time ago. There are now 25, I believe. There are well over 40 countries in Europe (the exact number depends on how you count the UK) so your new source represents a look and about a third of the countries in Europe and fairly distinct group. Not very representive of the whole of Europe. Not really the best way to discuss the original point that I was addressing which is the current trends IN ALL OF EUROPE.

Interesting stuff, provided you're not Jacobia who's seem to be out to accomplish nothing in this thread but try and pretend that GL's religion and viewpoint somehow makes him a liar... :rolleyes:

Really? Huh? And here I thought it was you that brought up relgion. Let's see if I can find that post. I'm not sure how many posts into the thread it took you to mention religion... let's look.

Already knowing it, I was reminded again from an opinion piece in the USAToday about how there are more Europeans that are alcoholics and people that believe in UFO's than there are Europeans that believe in God. Population growth, or the lack thereof, with the anti-religious secular society...

Whoops that's your first post, attacking the fact that Europe is generally in favor of religious freedom (though you call it 'anti-religious'). Yet you claim you aren't suggesting the religions of Europe have an effect on the trend.

Are you or are you not claiming that the lack of Christianity is the reason why it is shrinking?
I did not

Now let's see that first post again.

Population growth, or the lack thereof, with the anti-religious secular society...

Hmmm... looks like you're not being very consistent. You are certainly trying to relate religion to the declining population of Europe, despite your protestations that you didn't.

Post #2

Will the secularist children of the future, raised by non-religious parents with a near total lack of religious beliefs and understanding of doctrine of their own, be able to stop their siblings and contemporaries being converted? I'm saying no, they will not have the ability to fight back, as they are, essentially, unarmed.

Shall I post the rest. You mention religion in every post on the first page. You brought religion into the discussion and when I started making points about religion you claimed I was off-topic.

Now let's look at my first post in the thread. A post you claimed was off-topic.

As far as European culture dying, I don't see how a drop in population of a few hundred million people is going to change the fact that European culture has become a part of the culture in nearly every other country in the world (mostly because about a hundred years ago they considered all of those countries territories of one European nation or another). If we are going to worry about cultures immigrating into Europe shouldn't we also count Europeans emmigrating to other countries in their population as well?

Oh, look, you pretend I claimed that the population wouldn't drop and right there I said it in the first post in the thread. Hmmm... are we being honest? Let's see if you suggested it.

don’t bother going on from there until you can admit that the European population is predicted to actually decline (not slow growth, which you keep saying)

Oooooh, sucks to get caught misrepresenting my arguments, doesn't it? I can see how you can claim that when a said a drop in population of a FEW HUNDRED MILLION I actually was claiming there was a slow growth, assuming one is having difficulty understanding what I meant by a DROP in population.

I mentioned a slowed growth once as you'll likely point out. Let's see why I did so...

And your two country links (United Kingdom and Netherlands) both have LESS than one percent population growth. 0.29 for UK and 0.54 for N. What were you trying to prove anyways? Maybe you should go back and re-read the thread huh?

There population growth has slowed... YAY. Europe is already over-populated.

Hmmm... now who was it that mentioned a slow growth rather than a decline. Oh, wait, it was YOU.

don’t bother going on from there until you can admit that the European population is predicted to actually decline (not slow growth, which you keep saying)

Whoops. Nothing like pretending what you said was what I said.

I then proceeded to post a bunch of sources that showed that Christianity is very much in the majority in Europe and predicted to remain so which is, of course, contrary to your claims that Europe is an anti-religious society.

Now, shall we delve into my reaction to your Economist article and how you claimed it was a reaction to the OP article? Because, I'm willing to continue showing how you misrepresent and misconstrue my posts and then claim I'm being hateful when I correct you.

As to the posit you have about saying I post to links that disagree with me, you fail to comprehend entirely don't you? They don't have to agree with each other, I didn't write any of them. They are what they are. I don't hide evidence simply because it doesn't illuminate the same things I do. You seem to suggest that you would without evidence you don't agree with? Not exactly forthcoming of you now is it?
Fine. Post all evidence. And then when you post it say you don't agree with it. But you didn't do that, now did you?

http://www.economist.com/agenda/disp...ory_id=1291056

Europe is dying of old age and neglect, I submit that they will not disappear but be replaced by non-traditional western Europeans, and with that in mind, I evaluate that the Muslim community in Europe will continue to grow while the rest of it ages and decreases in actual numbers, not just percentage of the population.

You posted it because it agreed with you and you don't care if it's numbers are accurate current or agree with your other sources, only that they agree with you. Don't post an obviously flawed source that does not concur with your own source in the OP unless you expect to called to the carpet on it.

Good night. This has been fun. Let's do it again sometime.

Called to the carpet on saying stuff like, maybe, "Muslims will out number the rest of the Europeans by 2050?"...

Like the UN's scenario V said, in the small print... here, I'll bold it for you.

Scenario V
Scenario V keeps the potential support ratio at its 1995 value of 4.3 persons aged 15-64 for each person aged 65 or older. In order to keep the potential support ratio constant at that level, it would be necessary for the European Union to have 701 million immigrants from 1995 to 2050, an average of 12.7 million per year. Also, as under scenario IV, the irregularities in the age structure of the population would cause fluctuations in the annual number of migrants required to keep the potential support ratio constant. The peak levels would be attained in 2030-2035, with 20.3 million net immigrants per year. By 2050, out United Nations Population Division, Replacement Migration 87 of a total population of 1.2 billion, 918 million, or about 75 per cent, would be post-1995 immigrants or their descendants.

Says about the same thing I said.

Called to the carpet on saying stuff like, maybe, "Muslims will out number the rest of the Europeans by 2050?"...

Like the UN's scenario V said, in the small print... here, I'll bold it for you.

Scenario V
Scenario V keeps the potential support ratio at its 1995 value of 4.3 persons aged 15-64 for each person aged 65 or older. In order to keep the potential support ratio constant at that level, it would be necessary for the European Union to have 701 million immigrants from 1995 to 2050, an average of 12.7 million per year. Also, as under scenario IV, the irregularities in the age structure of the population would cause fluctuations in the annual number of migrants required to keep the potential support ratio constant. The peak levels would be attained in 2030-2035, with 20.3 million net immigrants per year. By 2050, out United Nations Population Division, Replacement Migration 87 of a total population of 1.2 billion, 918 million, or about 75 per cent, would be post-1995 immigrants or their descendants.

Says about the same thing I said.

Only if you assume that all of those immigrants are muslims. The UN doesn't.

Yes. The diminishing of Europe's population growth and eventual shrinking is well known. It is worrysome for companies because capitalism is based in obtaining ever larger sales and larger markets and in an ever increasing population to create goods and services. If that fails, capitalists will be hard pressed to keep investing or selling to Europe. That's the reason why immigration is kept high.

Other than that, it's not a problem at all. The entire world is moving towards zero population growth, and that's recognized as a good thing. It's not caused by secularism, but by ever improving education, especially of women, who can exercise the option of having children, hold a job, or not. It's been observed in many places, that when women are given education birthrates plummet. It's happening in the US, too; although it still keeps a good birthrate, this is falling.

Immigrants are European, no matter what religion and uses they bring with them. European cultures will simply change to encompass them.

Frankly, I don't see what's your point. Europe will be different in 100 years, just like it was different 100 years ago.

So now, we're only talking about the EU. Because you were originally talking about Europe. I like you change your point whenever it suits you and pretend like the people who are stilling talking about your original point have no idea what they're talking about. Time for some quotes I see.

Haha, nice try to cover why you didn't know why one report measures 700M and another less than 400m. :rolleyes: Too bad though, everyone can go back and see that you didn't understand the difference for themselves.

Hmmmm... now it specifically mentioned Russia, which is not a part of the EU. But hey, why bother sticking to the topic. Lets spend two seconds remembering that I don't write the the reports...
and when I say something like (for example) it means, something, as, you know, an "example" :rolleyes:


So now sticking to your original source that discusses the entirety of Europe and not just the EU we see that the predictions which you admit are older are NOT pertinent. The overall predictions by the UN regarding population growth shows the population of Europe will decline exactly as I described it. YOUR SOURCE.

Haha, trying to switch sides all of a sudden? BOTH sources and multiple sources are UN sources. The one YOU SAID have been historically reliable pages and pages ago, and now you dismiss them becuase they aren't on your side any more, they must feel so sad :(

:p :D Too bad we can remember that you said the UN was reliable and the old UN predictions were good... before you knew the economist was using the same such data. Nice cover though, just deny everything, you act like a corrupt and accused politician. LOL


Um, did you read the sources of their tables? The data I referenced as crap, the data related to the population trends, that you now admitted was outdated was from where? Go ahead and look at the picture, I'll wait. It's the one marked with a 2.... that's right the US census bureau. And when the article makes its predictions it says right in the article that it is going against the data because it believes the data is inaccurate. The only problem is that more recent data shows they were full of crap. Now, would you like to misrepresent the source a little more. Go ahead. I don't mind correcting you. The data they referenced is from the US Census Bureau and extrapolating the data themselves (actively disagreeing with the claims made by the Census Bureau).

You can argue with the census bureau all you want. Good for you. Be strong, don't waiver.... the rest of us will continue with the discussion here though, we don't have any vested interest in if any individual census survey doesn't meat with your approval...

Of course, this only talks about the 15 nations that used to be part of the EU some time ago. There are now 25, I believe. There are well over 40 countries in Europe (the exact number depends on how you count the UK) so your new source represents a look and about a third of the countries in Europe and fairly distinct group. Not very representive of the whole of Europe. Not really the best way to discuss the original point that I was addressing which is the current trends IN ALL OF EUROPE.

Hey, maybe you're catching on after all, you're starting to count how big a circumference some measurements use... perhaps there is hope for you afterall. But we won't hold our breath.


Good night. This has been fun. Let's do it again sometime.

No, let's not, not until you can stay on topic and avoid accusing people of being wrong simply because you don't approve of their world outlook and personal beliefs. You like to start spitting too much without providing quality input, it's not worth the effort trying to keep you on topic.

More verification of stats and predictions:

Today Europe's population is 725 million. The populations of 14 European nations are declining, and the declines are driven by powerful social values and trends that would be difficult for governments to reverse, were they inclined to try. The growth rates of the populations of the other European nations are at or near zero. So the European population is projected to be 600 million in 2050.

In developed countries, a birthrate of 2.1 children per woman is a replacement rate, producing population stability. Only Albania has that rate. Catholic Ireland's rate is 2.0, but the rates of the Catholic nations of Southern Europe are among Europe's lowest -- 1.2. The estimated European average is 1.34.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/11/ED294391.DTL


BTW: Also note: Jacobia seems completely incapable of fathoming that some organizations (and people) calculate “Europe” differently than other groups (and people) do. Thus he doesn’t understand how one can say something like 375m and another might say something like 725m. He has posted that he seems to think this means that one result disqualifies the other, but the truth is, as the rest of us know, that one group is measuring a different circumference of what it calls “Europe” than the other, such as, including Russia, or not (for example). The total estimate size should be compared with it’s own number, not the number from a different study, it’s apples to oranges. Ignore Jacobia’s endless ranting about that aspect of his comprehension failure.

I think I've adequately shown how ridiculous your claims about my posts are. I think I'll show how each of our comprehension is working...

Now where can I find some points about comprehension since you keep attacking mine...

The young world and the old
Higher fertility rates and immigration produce not only a larger population but a society that is younger, more mixed ethnically and, on balance, more dynamic. The simplest expression of this is median age (by definition, half of the population is older than the median age, and half younger). According to Bill Frey, a demographer at the University of Michigan, the median age in America in 2050 will be 36.2. In Europe it will be 52.7. That is a stunning difference, accounted for almost entirely by the dramatic ageing of the European population. At the moment, the median age is 35.5 in America and 37.7 in Europe. In other words, the difference in the median age is likely to rise from two to 17 years by 2050.
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1291056

Europe is dying of old age and neglect, I submit that they will not disappear but be replaced by non-traditional western Europeans, and with that in mind, I evaluate that the Muslim community in Europe will continue to grow while the rest of it ages and decreases in actual numbers, not just percentage of the population.

Three generations is my guess, as stated over and over again, this thread is not about stopping the Muslims, it's about discussing why the Europeans are dying off, and I'm blaming it on the general lack of community health that developed from too much Atheism, Secularism and Humanism.

THAT's the topic, not that there are more Christians now or not, but what will be there when they grow old and haven't replaced themselves.

BTW: where did you get the 30% Catholics in 2050 from?

Did you get tired of us always showing up your sources so you decided to start doing it yourself? Your own source has the most conservative projection putting Europe over 550 Million. How do you justify 360M? How about a non-editorial source that list it's sources? At least the UN source posts the actual information instead of a bunch of ridiculous assumptions.

Here's your source from the first page, placing the population between 550M and 760M. You know when you post two sources that disagree so dramatically one of them must be wrong.

Tired of showing up my sources? You mean the UN estimates and the individual country census estimates and the Economist estimates and all the other population estimates that say the same thing are somehow flawed because I posted a link to them here? What a dumbass

Actually, I said they weren't flawed. I said you knew source that TOTALLY contradicts the UN source is wrong. I'm sorry that wasn't clear to you. I suppose talking about the UN source and mentioning that it was a reasonable source wasn't setting off any "Oh, I see" bells, huH?
Which source? The economist source?

Whoops, can't follow the line of logic through a couple of posts then you accuse me of having a problem being clear and with reading comprehension. Uh-huh. Now that's just good clean fun.

Need more. How about this one....

don’t bother going on from there until you can admit that the European population is predicted to actually decline (not slow growth, which you keep saying)

And what I actually said...

QUOTE=Jocabia]As far as European culture dying, I don't see how a drop in population of a few hundred million people is going to change the fact that European culture has become a part of the culture in nearly every other country in the world [/quote]

Yep, that is clearly a good assessment of my position you made Greenlander. Now let's see in our interaction if someone did make mention of slow growth rather than decline.... hmmmm....

And your two country links (United Kingdom and Netherlands) both have LESS than one percent population growth. 0.29 for UK and 0.54 for N. What were you trying to prove anyways? Maybe you should go back and re-read the thread huh?

There population growth has slowed... YAY. Europe is already over-populated.

Whoops, looks like not only are you having trouble assessing my points, but you're having trouble assessing yours. Greenlander, if you're going to continue to attack me, you better bring a little more ammunition than simply misconstruing my posts. People here can read and adequately follow the thread. They see this nonsense for what it is. So address my points, stop attacking and baiting me, or don't, but it's just making you look silly.

Greenlander,

You are making some very sweeping and very disturbing generalizations about where people are born being related to their culture and religion. Your population statistics prove next to nothing without these generalizations. Perhaps you should rethink.

Only if you assume that all of those immigrants are muslims. The UN doesn't.

Exactly, I DID, that was the POSIT of my OP! I even said so in the OP, that the Muslim part was MY idea, not found in the links. Yes, nicely done, good for you. Give you 300 posts and you will finally understand the first post of this thread... :rolleyes:

I think that if something is going to kill the European cultures it's this thread.

I think that if something is going to kill the European cultures it's this thread.

Agreed.

"The horror, the horror."

Exactly, I DID, that was the POSIT of my OP! I even said so in the OP, that the Muslim part was MY idea, not found in the links. Yes, nicely done, good for you. Give you 300 posts and you will finally understand the first post of this thread... :rolleyes:

Um, what? If it's your opinion, then it's untouchable. You put it in a thread, so it's being debated. You've shown no support for your opinion. That's the point. I'm sorry that you missed it.

Greenlander,

You are making some very sweeping and very disturbing generalizations about where people are born being related to their culture and religion. Your population statistics prove next to nothing without these generalizations. Perhaps you should rethink.

How is that? Where did I make any generalizations about culture and where they are born? I’ve submitted, from the beginning here, that cultures can move and overtake other cultures, via immigration AND out producing others once they arrive. How does that make me guilty of what you suggest?

As to me ‘guessing’ that the future Europe will potentially become more Muslim than any other group, I’m not the only one. As shown below.

However, there is one absolute certainty: The Islamic population will rapidly increase its share of the world population. The world population will increase by 2.5 Billion between 2005 and 2100. On this amount, the muslim countries will bring 1.75 billion ( 70% of the growth of population yet to come ). In 2005, Muslims represent 24% of world population ( One man out of four). This figure will attain 33% in 2050 ( One man out of three ). It could reach 37% in 2100 ( One man out of 2.7 ).


Instead of the Paul Ehrlich “population bomb”, we are yet experiencing an “Islamic bomb”. This phenomenon would mean serious consequences for many countries and notably for Europe.
http://www.freeworldacademy.com/globalleader/population.htm
(bolding their own, not mine)

Um, what? If it's your opinion, then it's untouchable. You put it in a thread, so it's being debated. You've shown no support for your opinion. That's the point. I'm sorry that you missed it.

See post above this one, the one to Cat-Tribe, pure coincidence. But you say that I’ve shown no other people or organizations that agree with my assessment? Blah on you, that's like the third (by my memory) link in this thread that agree with me that we will likely see a large Muslim growth in Europe, even as the total population of Europe declines.

How is that? Where did I make any generalizations about culture and where they are born? I’ve submitted, from the beginning here, that cultures can move and overtake other cultures, via immigration AND out producing others once they arrive. How does that make me guilty of what you suggest?

As to me ‘guessing’ that the future Europe will potentially become more Muslim than any other group, I’m not the only one. As shown below.

However, there is one absolute certainty: The Islamic population will rapidly increase its share of the world population. The world population will increase by 2.5 Billion between 2005 and 2100. On this amount, the muslim countries will bring 1.75 billion ( 70% of the growth of population yet to come ). In 2005, Muslims represent 24% of world population ( One man out of four). This figure will attain 33% in 2050 ( One man out of three ). It could reach 37% in 2100 ( One man out of 2.7 ).


Instead of the Paul Ehrlich “population bomb”, we are yet experiencing an “Islamic bomb”. This phenomenon would mean serious consequences for many countries and notably for Europe.
http://www.freeworldacademy.com/globalleader/population.htm
(bolding their own, not mine)

1. You started out equating "European Culture" with certain religious views. That was offensive and erroneous.

2. You assume that culture passes from father to child like genes or a virus. In truth, a child born in Europe has many influences on his culture. Islamic parents in Europe are not a contagion.

3. I'm glad you stopped pussy-footing around and admitted this is merely an "Islamic [population] bomb" scare.

4. I'd love to see you define and prove the "serious consequences for many countries and notably for Europe" from this alleged phenomenon.

Haha, nice try to cover why you didn't know why one report measures 700M and another less than 400m. :rolleyes: Too bad though, everyone can go back and see that you didn't understand the difference for themselves.

Lets spend two seconds remembering that I don't write the the reports...
and when I say something like (for example) it means, something, as, you know, an "example" :rolleyes:

You didn't write them. You advocated them. If you post them as evidence expect to answer for them. Don't want to. Don't post them. The sources do not agree with one another. The source openly admits AS I QUOTED that it goes off the trends because it doesn't believe them to be accurate.

Haha, trying to switch sides all of a sudden? BOTH sources and multiple sources are UN sources. The one YOU SAID have been historically reliable pages and pages ago, and now you dismiss them becuase they aren't on your side any more, they must feel so sad :(

I didn't dismiss them. I said they were old. The national weather service is a reliable source for weather data, but I'm going to consider the reports on the predicted weather for tomorrow that they put out today to be A LOT more reliable than their reports on the predicted weather for tomorrow that they put out six weeks ago. I'm sorry you can't see that predictions become more accurate as they become closer to the time they are predicting for.

:p :D Too bad we can remember that you said the UN was reliable and the old UN predictions were good... before you knew the economist was using the same such data. Nice cover though, just deny everything, you act like a corrupt and accused politician. LOL

It was not using the same data. Are you having trouble reading the "US Census Bureau" at the bottom of the graph? Are you also having trouble reading them saying they don't believe the numbers they cite are accurate so they make their own predictions, predictions that match neither the UN nor the US.

You can argue with the census bureau all you want. Good for you. Be strong, don't waiver.... the rest of us will continue with the discussion here though, we don't have any vested interest in if any individual census survey doesn't meat with your approval...

I didn't. The article you cited did. Here, I'll help... " Admittedly, this projection is based on high assumptions about fertility rates—over 2.5 in 2025-50." Read that again, the article suggests that the numbers are incorrect. It also does so in the previous paragraph when it suggests the numbers are historically incorrect. Try reading the ENTIRE article next time.

Hey, maybe you're catching on after all, you're starting to count how big a circumference some measurements use... perhaps there is hope for you afterall. But we won't hold our breath.

You're the one acting is the old evidence regarding a third of Europe has anything to do with the new numbers about ALL of Europe. Let's post the beginning of your post again...

Thank you. It has now been revealed to us that you have no idea what you are talking about. You are a parrot, you keep repeating things you obviously don't understand.

According to the UN...Replacement Migration report for the European Union

I was talking about the entirety of Europe and you dispute my claim using only the EU when it was about a third of the size of Europe. Nice try again at misconstruing my post. Have you been caught doing this enough?

Again, the Economist - "if you assume that by then much of Central and Eastern Europe will have joined the EU." In other words, their projection assumes that much of Europe will be in the EU and they claim to have adjusted for it. So they CLAIM to be talking about all of Europe, but their numbers still disagree with the current projections by almost 40%. Whoops. Keep spinning. Maybe somebody notice how badly you're faring in this argument.

No, let's not, not until you can stay on topic and avoid accusing people of being wrong simply because you don't approve of their world outlook and personal beliefs. You like to start spitting too much without providing quality input, it's not worth the effort trying to keep you on topic.

I've already shown how I've stayed on topic and you're having trouble following the line of the posts. But I love how you keep claiming I'm spitting. Again, time for some quotes.

Ignore Jacobia’s endless ranting about that aspect of his comprehension failure.

Jacobia seems completely incapable of fathoming

you act like a corrupt and accused politician. LOL

You like to start spitting too much without providing quality input

This one is particularly amusing. I wonder who would fare better in a poll of which of us is a more respected poster or a poll on which of us is more likely to provide quality input. I suspect you wouldn't fare well at all.

perhaps there is hope for you afterall. But we won't hold our breath.

Give you 300 posts and you will finally understand the first post of this thread... :rolleyes:

whatever other crap opinion hatred you spewed

provided you're not Jacobia who's seem to be out to accomplish nothing in this thread but try and pretend that GL's religion and viewpoint somehow makes him a liar...

you fail to comprehend entirely don't you?

Not exactly forthcoming of you now is it?

And you wonder why I call you jackass and object to your troll baiting posts in threads like this, you try to divert original topics from whatever it is to whatever nonsensical topic you want it to be so you can post attacks against me personally. Jackass.

And since this and the rest of you post goes into yet more and more off topic and unrelated balderdash crap about who said what about who's religion I'll ignore it.

That would work better as soon as you start identifying your topics properly and discussing the same topic as the thread ~ let us know when you start.

What a dumbass

(Ah, Ha! Finally, a real position, a post of debate, you finally put forward a position about the topic on hand. It must be like shitting nails for you or something, but alas, it’s here!)

For fucks sake man, get a clue.

Then you come in posting all this yappy shit about how none of it is true, Europe’s all Christians yadda yadda yadda, and somehow I just make this stuff up and lie that Europe's populations isn't really declining at all and the links are suspect :rolleyes:

QUOTE=Greenlander]You should put a sign in front of your nincompoop posts, here, you can use this one.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c17/Greenlander3/Troll_Xing.jpg[/QUOTE]


Continue baiting if you like, but stop pretending like I'm mistreating you. I've never called you a single name. I've attacked your posts, but that's part of debating. You've attacked me personally, repeatedly. So stop pretending like all my posts are 'spitting'. It just sounds silly when one can quote you this many times being insulting and directly attacking me.

See post above this one, the one to Cat-Tribe, pure coincidence. But you say that I’ve shown no other people or organizations that agree with my assessment? Blah on you, that's like the third (by my memory) link in this thread that agree with me that we will likely see a large Muslim growth in Europe, even as the total population of Europe declines.

Statistics, studies, man. Opinions pieces merely expose that your opinion can only be supported by other opinions. I don't care if a billion people share your opinion if there is no evidence for it.

You should put a sign in front of your nincompoop posts, here, you can use this one.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c17/Greenlander3/Troll_Xing.jpg


oh... the irony.

Dude, 2 mods told you to quit behaving like a kindergarten. And still you are.

1. You started out equating "European Culture" with certain religious views. That was offensive and erroneous.

Not. European culture is what it is, I didn't state the pre-existing condition. If anything, I weighed in favor of non-religion, and even said later that if I attacked anyone it was the humanist agnostic/atheists, no religious group.

2. You assume that culture passes from father to child like genes or a virus. In truth, a child born in Europe has many influences on his culture. Islamic parents in Europe are not a contagion.

And neither are they sponges that absorb the firmament that was there before them. They do not become traditional 'Spanish' by living in Spanish territory.

3. I'm glad you stopped pussy-footing around and admitted this is merely an "Islamic [population] bomb" scare.

Is not, that's a link to a different source. I welcomed the Muslims in the OP, and still do.

4. I'd love to see you define and prove the "serious consequences for many countries and notably for Europe" from this alleged phenomenon.

Not MY serious consequences, theirs. Nice ad-H attack though. :rolleyes:

That doesn't work in court reliably does it? You know what I mean, bad arguments and misdirection of attention arguments, they don’t actually help you win anywhere do they? If they do though, it would explain why you try to use them here.

http://www.freeworldacademy.com/globalleader/population.htm
(bolding their own, not mine)

BTW, nice source. :rolleyes:

*snip lies*

You have posts in there that are attributed to me that are not mine.

BTW, nice source. :rolleyes:

I've linked to a dozen sources.... nice Ad-Hock...

Statistics, studies, man. Opinions pieces merely expose that your opinion can only be supported by other opinions. I don't care if a billion people share your opinion if there is no evidence for it.

You want evidence, since we are talking about 2050 and later, you'll have to wait until then to get it huh :rolleyes:

Not. European culture is what it is, I didn't state the pre-existing condition. If anything, I weighed in favor of non-religion, and even said later that if I attacked anyone it was the humanist agnostic/atheists, no religious group.

I don't have a dog and he didn't bite anyone. Good defense.

And neither are they sponges that absorb the firmament that was there before them. They do not become traditional 'Spanish' by living in Spanish territory.

So what is a Spanish Muslim's child, a mujadheen?

Is not, that's a link to a different source. I welcomed the Muslims in the OP, and still do.

Not MY serious consequences, theirs. Nice ad-H attack though. :rolleyes:

That doesn't work in court reliably does it? You know what I mean, bad arguments and misdirection of attention arguments, they don’t actually help you win anywhere do they? If they do though, it would explain why you try to use them here.

If you want to refer to court tactics you put up the witness, counselor. You said that quote supported your views. Does it or does it not?

BTW, if Europe becomes increasingly Muslim, why would European culture thereby die?

I've linked to a dozen sources.... nice Ad-Hock...

What is an Ad-Hock?

I'm familiar with an ad hominem fallacy, which I did not make, but I've never heard of the Ad-Hock fallacy.

So what is a Spanish Muslim's child, a mujadheen?

Silly question, bad answer.


BTW, if Europe becomes increasingly Muslim, why would European culture thereby die?

Does Puritan Culture = Native American Culture? Does moving into a different house change my culture?

What is an Ad-Hock?

I'm familiar with an ad hominem fallacy, which I did not make, but I've never heard of the Ad-Hock fallacy.

ad hominem hack job

Does Puritan Culture = Native American Culture? Does moving into a different house change my culture?

Are you seeking to imply that Muslims will kill all current Europeans and take their land? Otherwise your analogy is silly.

And doesn't the flaw in your argument in fact lie in your view that Muslims must be "invaders"? Among other things, this ignores the difference between an immigrant and the offspring of immigrants?

ad hominem hack job

Cute. Now, if you look up ad hominem, you'll find I made no such fallacy.

You simply used a questionable source and I pointed that out.

Cute. Now, if you look up ad hominem, you'll find I made no such fallacy.

You simply used a questionable source and I pointed that out.

Nah, the ad-hock was not addressed at defending that site (nor not defending that site) but against the idea that your attack on that site somehow actually discredits it's summaries nor does it discredit my argument, thus, making your response insufficient and not useful.


ad-hock.

You have posts in there that are attributed to me that are not mine.

I accidentally put quote tags around what was meant to be a comment. Everything else you said, so you're snip that suggests it's all lies is what you accuse me of. I fixed the post. Now EVERY one of them is something you actually said. Meanwhile, you ignore the point that you have been attacking me throughout the thread while pretending I'm the one who is 'spitting'

Nah, the ad-hock was not addressed at defending that site (nor not defending that site) but against the idea that your attack on that site somehow actually discredits it's summaries nor does it discredit my argument, thus, making your response insufficient and not useful.


ad-hock.

Wow. "ad hock" is a pretty magical phrase. It manages to completely mischaracterize something an opponent has done and then defeats that alleged argument. Moreover, it somehow appears to turn a crappy source into a good source.

I merely implied that the Free World Academy might not be a good source and suddenly I've insulted you, your children, and your grandchildren and impaled myself at the same time.

"Ad Hock" also magically changes the subject so that prior points and arguments no longer require a response.

I wish I had your imagination.

Nah, the ad-hock was not addressed at defending that site (nor not defending that site) but against the idea that your attack on that site somehow actually discredits it's summaries nor does it discredit my argument, thus, making your response insufficient and not useful.


ad-hock.

More spinning. You claimed it was an ad-hominem hack job.

What is an Ad-Hock?

I'm familiar with an ad hominem fallacy, which I did not make, but I've never heard of the Ad-Hock fallacy.
ad hominem hack job

I would love to see where this proposed ad-hominem is. When you were called to point it out, you pretended as if you weren't actually saying that. Now, admit you used the term incorrectly. You've put out two completely different explanations of your made up term ad-hock, which is obviously just you not remembering the term, ad hominem as evidence by your explanation quoted above.

Are you seeking to imply that Muslims will kill all current Europeans and take their land? Otherwise your analogy is silly.

No, that's why I've been saying three generations for MY predictions in Europe (BTW: Puritans didn’t kill Native Americans in a land grab as you know, but others might have later, but that’s not my analogy though) using 2050 for the census predictions and giving people something to argue and measure against).

And doesn't the flaw in your argument in fact lie in your view that Muslims must be "invaders"? Among other things, this ignores the difference between an immigrant and the offspring of immigrants?

Actually no, I think my argument says that the third generation of the immigrants already there will be the predominate group, thus exchanging one culture group with another group in the territory and the overthrow occurs without notice or nothing but small detail of daily life of 2050... When the ‘today average’ European’s age will be getting real close to retirement age.

Anyone else notice the dropped argument. There are claims that one shouldn't have to defend their sources and when those claims are responded to, no response. In a little bit, the claim that one should have to defend their sources, and no response again. Rinse. Repeat.

I'm sorry to tell you this Greenlander and not meant to be an insult but you are comparable to Bill O'Reilly. Throughout the whole thread of yours, it seems like you're attacking posters instead of debating. Dude, chill out!

Anyone else notice the dropped argument. There are claims that one shouldn't have to defend their sources and when those claims are responded to, no response. In a little bit, the claim that one should have to defend their sources, and no response again. Rinse. Repeat.

Go back and attack ALL of the more than half dozen links I've posted to, spitter.

No, that's why I've been saying three generations for MY predictions in Europe (BTW: Puritans didn’t kill Native Americans in a land grab as you know, but others might have later, but that’s not my analogy though) using 2050 for the census predictions and giving people something to argue and measure against).

Actually no, I think my argument says that the third generation of the immigrants already there will be the predominate group, thus exchanging one culture group with another group in the territory and the overthrow occurs without notice or nothing but small detail of daily life of 2050... When the ‘today average’ European’s age will be getting real close to retirement age.

Ah, now we are back to the "Islam bomb" that will destroy Europe.

Do you know any Muslims? They aren't an alien race.

I'm sorry to tell you this Greenlander and not meant to be an insult but you are comparable to Bill O'Reilly. Throughout the whole thread of yours, it seems like you're attacking posters instead of debating.

For the last several pages the debate has been very little except attacks against me and not arguments or positions.... especially the ones after Jacobia started posting in this thread.

Go back and attack ALL of the more than half dozen links I've posted to, spitter.

Can you really do no better than name-calling? "spitter"?

Its really juvenile and quite annoying.

Go back and attack ALL of the more than half dozen links I've posted to, spitter.wow... what kind of a behavior is that?

Ah, now we are back to the "Islam bomb" that will destroy Europe.

Do you know any Muslims? They aren't an alien race.

None of that is an argument that says my analyses is wrong, it only implies that my analyses isn't a threat if it might be true.

I agree, it's not a threat. But my analyses is still likely true. Who claimed it was a bad thing?


EDIT:
Perhaps this will help you understand why it might be a good idea to be prepared for a cultural or population flux in a region...
http://carbon.cudenver.edu/public/sociology/introsoc/topics/UnitNotes/week13.html

No, that's why I've been saying three generations for MY predictions in Europe (BTW: Puritans didn’t kill Native Americans in a land grab as you know, but others might have later, but that’s not my analogy though) using 2050 for the census predictions and giving people something to argue and measure against).

You miss the fact that those puritans after a couple of generations had much more in common with the natives than they did with their English counterparts. By forty years after settling America, Europeans viewed the poeple who were in America as savages, including the former Europeans and it was still different in that in that case the people weren't migrating to another country, their country was taking over another country.

Actually no, I think my argument says that the third generation of the immigrants already there will be the predominate group, thus exchanging one culture group with another group in the territory and the overthrow occurs without notice or nothing but small detail of daily life of 2050... When the ‘today average’ European’s age will be getting real close to retirement age.

Third-generation immigrants have usually melded their culture into the cultrue among which they live. My family is third-generation and no one in my family knows anything of our former culture. I have rediscovered some of it through research, but NONE of it was passed down. By third generation, most immigrants speak the native language and no longer speak their own language. By the third generation, much of the cultural practices have reformed and melded with the culture of the natives. Still doesn't haven't shown why European culture would necessarily die.

The only places you can show where one culture virtually replaced another is cases where countries or civilizations, not simply people immigrating from one area to another. The cases you use as examples are cases where it was an intended wholesale replacement and an intended attempted to annex the land.

Even in annexation, your point doesn't hold. African culture still flourishes in Africa even if pockets of European culture flourish there as well.

Can you really do no better than name-calling? "spitter"?

Its really juvenile and quite annoying.

Then don't post in this thread if you don't like the language used in it.

Go back and attack ALL of the more than half dozen links I've posted to, spitter.

Seriously, weren't you told to stop with the name-calling? Your behavior is ridiculous.

Go back and attack ALL of the more than half dozen links I've posted to, spitter.

Every time I point out the problems with your sources you claim you're not responsible for them because you didn't write them. So which is it? Do you want to discuss your sources or no?

None of that is an argument that says my analyses is wrong, it only implies that my analyses isn't a threat if it might be true.

I agree, it's not a threat. But my analyses is still likely true. Who claimed it was a bad thing?

Your analysis is simply an Islam-based version of the "Red Scare."

The problems with your population analyses have been aptly dealt with by others.

I attacked your assumption that the population numbers meant anything of significance. You have yet to show it does.

You have repeatedly implied that the population trends are a threat to European culture. "Is the European Culture going to Die?"

Don't try to act all pure and innocent now that I called you out.

Then don't post in this thread if you don't like the language used in it.

Fine. I'm going to bed anyway. But your conduct is unbecoming and, imao, in violation of the rules of these forums.

The only places you can show where one culture virtually replaced another is cases where countries or civilizations, not simply people immigrating from one area to another. The cases you use as examples are cases where it was an intended wholesale replacement and an intended attempted to annex the land.

Even in annexation, your point doesn't hold. African culture still flourishes in Africa even if pockets of European culture flourish there as well.

Harlem and Ghetto, is it Black or Jewish? Is Boston Irish or Puerto Rican? Is Minnesota native American or Scandinavian? Is Canada French or English?

How many examples do we need to show that cultures change even as location names stay the same?

For the last several pages the debate has been very little except attacks against me and not arguments or positions.... especially the ones after Jacobia started posting in this thread.They're not attacking you, you're attacking them who disagrees your point. You did that in a very childish ways. Tell you what, chill.

Every time I point out the problems with your sources you claim you're not responsible for them because you didn't write them. So which is it? Do you want to discuss your sources or no?See Greenlander, there you go.

Your analysis is simply an Islam-based version of the "Red Scare."

The problems with your population analyses have been aptly dealt with by others.

I attacked your assumption that the population numbers meant anything of significance. You have yet to show it does.

You have repeatedly implied that the population trends are a threat to European culture. "Is the European Culture going to Die?"

Don't try to act all pure and innocent now that I called you out.

Oh my goodness, go re-read the OP again, I welcomed the Muslims and said good riddance the to Europeans... Your attempt to accuse me of a racist motive is yet again nothing but another ad-hock.

Fine. I'm going to bed anyway.
Yeah, it's like 2:10 right now. Maybe I'll be up a bit longer, I want to finish up my 3D modeling assignment.

Harlem and Ghetto, is it Black or Jewish? Is Boston Irish or Puerto Rican? Is Minnesota native American or Scandinavian? Is Canada French or English?

How many examples do we need to show that cultures change even as location names stay the same?

Yes, and have you gone to these places. Those cultures have very little to do with their original cultures. The origianl peoples would not recognize them. They've been fairly Americanized and the only reason they don't resemble the natives is because we virtually killed them all. Have you been to Minnesota. How many people there still know how to speak Swedish, Norwegian,etc.? Wanna make a bet the percentage is minute?

They're not attacking you, you're attacking them who disagrees your point. You did that in a very childish ways. Tell you what, chill.

No, they started out trying to say that it wasn't even happening, now they are saying that it doesn't matter that its happening.

They aren't positing positions at all, only arguing that I must be wrong.

Yes, and have you gone to these places. Those cultures have very little to do with their original cultures. The origianl peoples would not recognize them. They've been fairly Americanized and the only reason they don't resemble the natives is because we virtually killed them all. Have you been to Minnesota. How many people there still know how to speak Swedish, Norwegian,etc.? Wanna make a bet the percentage is minute?


How many speak Dakota?

All of you are sooooo American! European Culture:) :) :headbang: :headbang: ???? there isn't a european culture. And when talking about Christianity and/or the Islam in Europe there is a big difference between countries. Italy, Spain and the Eastern European countries are very religious and that won't change in the near future. The majority of North-Western Europe is not religious. The Islam is not a big 'threat' in Eastern Europe (Poland, Czech Rep., Ukraine etc) because there are not a lot of Muslims living there. In North-Western Europe the Muslims are well integrated and a large part of the Muslims is secular. But in France, on the other hand, the Muslims are not well integrated and there is a problem of fundamentalist Islam there.

So don't talk about Europe as one 'country', that's like talking about Asia as one country.

Could someone define European culture for me please? That's a lot of culture clumped together.

Oh my goodness, go re-read the OP again, I welcomed the Muslims and said good riddance the to Europeans... Your attempt to accuse me of a racist motive is yet again nothing but another ad-hock.

But you still keep switching between claiming they will destroy the European culture and that their effect will be benign. You can't make both claims.

No, they started out trying to say that it wasn't even happening, now they are saying that it doesn't matter that its happening.

They aren't positing positions at all, only arguing that I must be wrong.
Sorry but I don't buy that. Anyway, take a break or risk further trouble.

How many speak Dakota?

Again, you use an example of the natives that we decimated. Are you claiming that the muslims are going to literally kill off the Europeans? If not, your point is spurious. You trying to link an empire expanding to immigration. They are not the same. The acquisition of America was a hostile and genocidal act. Unless you are suggesting Muslims are going to behave the same way, stop comparing them. You've claimed you've expected them to be benign, yet you compare their immigration to the slaughter of the Native Americans.

No, they started out trying to say that it wasn't even happening, now they are saying that it doesn't matter that its happening.

They aren't positing positions at all, only arguing that I must be wrong.

Pardon? My first post in this thread said the population was declining by a couple hundred million in the next forty or so years. I have always said and still say that it will not be primarily Muslim.

However, we are pointing out that even if what you said was true, that your conclusions based on the influx of Muslims are false.

These are each seperate points addressing the various parts of your argument. You presented an argument, why are you suprised that we are addressing each part of that argument?

Meanwhile, trying to prove you wrong does not equate to attacking you. Calling people names definitely does equate to attacks.

Oh my goodness, go re-read the OP again, I welcomed the Muslims and said good riddance the to Europeans... Your attempt to accuse me of a racist motive is yet again nothing but another ad-hock.
And saying good riddance to Europeans is not racist? :rolleyes: Its still our continent, and it will be for a long time to come.

I'm an optimist and choose the best possible outcome:
[x] Europe will raise more Atheist/Agnostics children in secularism.

To hell with religion! :sniper:

And saying good riddance to Europeans is not racist? :rolleyes: Its still our continent, and it will be for a long time to come.

It seems, racism is only racism when coming from a white to a black/arab/asian/hispanic.....not the other way around....How I love the hypocritic left:rolleyes:

It seems, racism is only racism when coming from a white to a black/arab/asian/hispanic.....not the other way around....How I love the hypocritic left:rolleyes:

Um. Greenlander is definitely not leftist. He's very right-wing.

Nice try at smear tactics, though.

And saying good riddance to Europeans is not racist? :rolleyes: Its still our continent, and it will be for a long time to come.

Are you defining Europe as a race?

Your point that Greenlander is faking non-prejudice by being prejudiced against current Europeans is well-taken.**

Your implication that some other race is seeking to take your continent is not.

**Greenlander is actually faking when he says he wants a secular Muslim state, so don't worry.

It seems, racism is only racism when coming from a white to a black/arab/asian/hispanic.....not the other way around....How I love the hypocritic left:rolleyes:
Hmmm...Greenlander is on the hypocritic left now?

Okay, let's close this thread. It really earned it.

Fact:
In some Eastern European countries populations are shrinking.
In other countries immigration cancels that trend out.
The trend is due to people living longer and women having less children.
That is not due to religion, but due to economic pressures and social trends.
The immigrants often come from Muslim countries.
Most of those are just as liberal religiously as the Europeans. Some aren't, and they practice their religion as anyone else would.
Eventually there will be a larger number of Muslims in Europe as there is now. Whether or not that will be a majority is impossible to say now.

Whatever this new mix will spawn, it will be uniquely "European".

And all is how it should be.

Um. Greenlander is definitely not leftist. He's very right-wing.

Nice try at smear tactics, though.

HE doesnt have to be leftist, but that comment was ever so left.

HE doesnt have to be leftist, but that comment was ever so left.

Nice try. No cigar.

HE doesnt have to be leftist, but that comment was ever so left.
Hardly yours to decide, hey?

Hmmm...Greenlander is on the hypocritic left now?

He doesnt have to be on the hypocritic left himself, but that statement he used was.

???

Why muslims? :(

All my country gets are African Christians, and Orthodox Ukranians o.o

Hardly yours to decide, hey?

Actually, no.

In America the left only consider rascism rascism when it comes from whites and goes to minorities.

Therefore, if a black man attacked a white guy=muggin/assault

If a white guy attacked a black man=Hate Crime/mugging/assault

they call this "positive discrimination" and use to to "level the playing field"

???

Why muslims? :(

All my country gets are African Christians, and Orthodox Ukranians o.o

beecos evree1 noes muzzies ar teh eval!!111!!!12

Actually, no.

In America the left only consider rascism rascism when it comes from whites and goes to minorities.

Therefore, if a black man attacked a white guy=muggin/assault

If a white guy attacked a black man=Hate Crime/mugging/assault

they call this "positive discrimination" and use to to "level the playing field"

Actually, no.

This is entirely untrue.

One can commit a hate crime against a white male.

A crime is not a hate crime merely because the victim is black.

You know nothing about the subject.

Elgesh']beecos evree1 noes muzzies ar teh eval!!111!!!12

What are you, 3?

What are you, 3?

Makes me a year older than the OP :)

Actually, no.

This is entirely untrue.

One can commit a hate crime against a white male.

A crime is not a hate crime merely because the victim is black.

You know nothing about the subject.

Actually, I know alot about the subject.

For instance, why do we let minorities who are less qualified get into colleges over whites who are more qualified=positive discrimination

Another thing that has just caught my attention

Why is it ok for blacks to wear things displaying, Jamacian pride, black pride, spanish people can wear things displaying, purto rican pride, brown pride, but a white could NEVER EVER wear something that says, German pride, Russian pride, or white pride?

Actually, I know alot about the subject.


Bullshit. You can't even define a hate crime and you obviously cannot cite the statutes.

But this discussion has wandered from the topic of this thread. Create your own thread if you like.

Why is it ok for blacks to wear things displaying, Jamacian pride, black pride, spanish people can wear things displaying, purto rican pride, brown pride, but a white could NEVER EVER wear something that says, German pride, Russian pride, or white pride?

because in the popular imagination, white pride is still associated with nazism?

Elgesh']beecos evree1 noes muzzies ar teh eval!!111!!!12


Sim sim, e eu é que te entendo? Fala Português ou Inglês e já podemos começar a falar! :p

Elgesh']because in the popular imagination, white pride is still associated with nazism?

How about English, Russian, Irish, French/pride? Those arnt associated with nazism.

And black pride is still associated with the black panthers...a terrorist organization, yet its still ok.

Bullshit. You can't even define a hate crime and you obviously cannot cite the statutes.

But this discussion has wandered from the topic of this thread. Create your own thread if you like.

No, its just that my, along with many other conservatives I know, definition doesnt match yours, so you automatically put it down as bullshit.

How old are we?

How about English, Russian, Irish, French/pride? Those arnt associated with nazism.

And black pride is still associated with the black panthers...a terrorist organization, yet its still ok.

Irrelevant! What, you want popular opinion to be _nuanced_ all of a sudden?! :p

Sim sim, e eu é que te entendo? Fala Português ou Inglês e já podemos começar a falar! :p
pesaroso! era justo um gracejo mau:p

Elgesh']pesaroso! era justo um gracejo mau:p

I smell babelfish!

No, its just that my, along with many other conservatives I know, definition doesnt match yours, so you automatically put it down as bullshit.

Fine. Cite the statute or a case. Perhaps you should look here (http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp) and here (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/openpage.htm).

How old are we?

I'm 36. How old are you?

I smell babelfish!

What? You want actual _real_ care and consideration? :D

How about English, Russian, Irish, French/pride? Those arnt associated with nazism.

And black pride is still associated with the black panthers...a terrorist organization, yet its still ok.

Again, you are way off topic.

But we do celebrate various kinds of pride. Heard of St. Patrick's Day? There tends to be some Irish Pride shown.

Italian pride is also high profile.

Elgesh']What? You want actual _real_ care and consideration? :D

Yes.

Bake me some pie! :)

Yes.

Bake me some pie! :)

<throws shop-bought pie in one direction, runs in opposite>

How about English, Russian, Irish, French/pride? Those arnt associated with nazism.

And black pride is still associated with the black panthers...a terrorist organization, yet its still ok.
Gee Atlantian Isles, don't you realise its a crime to be white and proud nowadays? :rolleyes: Give it some time, and the PC Nazis will be carrying you off to prison...just before their convoy is blown up by black pride extremists :p

You forgot one of the strongest prides btw, Japanese pride...:p They aren't white, but its one of the most nationalist nations out there.

Hmmm...Greenlander is on the hypocritic left now?

Okay, let's close this thread. It really earned it.

Fact:
In some Eastern European countries populations are shrinking.
In other countries immigration cancels that trend out.
The trend is due to people living longer and women having less children.
That is not due to religion, but due to economic pressures and social trends.
The immigrants often come from Muslim countries.
Most of those are just as liberal religiously as the Europeans. Some aren't, and they practice their religion as anyone else would.
Eventually there will be a larger number of Muslims in Europe as there is now. Whether or not that will be a majority is impossible to say now.

Whatever this new mix will spawn, it will be uniquely "European".

And all is how it should be.

Ceteris paribus...things may change an awful lot in years to come.

Are you defining Europe as a race?

Your point that Greenlander is faking non-prejudice by being prejudiced against current Europeans is well-taken.**

Your implication that some other race is seeking to take your continent is not.

**Greenlander is actually faking when he says he wants a secular Muslim state, so don't worry.
Europe can't be a single race, not at this point anyway. It has too many racial subdivisions, if you will, even among different ethnic groups. So what I meant was the current denizens of Europe, nothing more, nothing less. His little statement, "good riddance to Europeans," is what I found idiotic, as it is a presumption that Europe is going to decline, which I don't see as valid.

So what I've gathered from this thread is certain people are NOT worried that European culture will die. As long as Europe exists and is populated, European culture will continue.

No, they are worried that European, white culture and the white population of Europe will die out. Or worse, become a *gasp* minority! :rolleyes:

Quick, rally, my white brothers! God save us from the darkies! ;)

I do find it amusing that a lot of people are concerned about "European culture" but don't even partake of said culture, other than maybe watching a German porno every now and then.

No, they are worried that European, white culture and the white population of Europe will die out. Or worse, become a *gasp* minority! :rolleyes:

Quick, rally, my white brothers! God save us from the darkies! ;)

That is assuming the said minorities (should they become majorities) are not racist themselves. While we often shy away from racism, others will not do so as eagerly. What if we end up with a situation of non-caucasian majorities who desire to come out of their shell and opress the new minorities? Although majoritarian dictatorships are difficult to establish in most democracies, its perfectly feasible. We keep on assuming all minorities are not racist. That is naive. Recent enquiries made in Britain concerning the effectiveness of PC have proven that we are so scared of condemning negative attitudes among minorities, for fear of being racist/sexist/whatever, that we allow them to foster these attitudes.

That is assuming the said minorities (should they become majorities) are not racist themselves.

No it's not. Nothing I said assumed such a thing. Nor would this relevant. Two wrongs don't make a right, do they?

While we often shy away from racism, others will not do so as eagerly. What if we end up with a situation of non-caucasian majorities who desire to come out of their shell and opress the new minorities? Although majoritarian dictatorships are difficult to establish in most democracies, its perfectly feasible. We keep on assuming all minorities are not racist. That is naive.

Yes... rally my white brothers, God save us from the darkies! :eek:

No it's not. Nothing I said assumed such a thing. Nor would this relevant. Two wrongs don't make a right, do they?
I never said you assumed that. I was referring to what seems to be the general assumption behind most posts in this thread, namely that only caucasians have racist tendencies, which is completely unfounded.


Yes... rally my white brothers, God save us from the darkies! :eek:
You put words in my mouth where there are none...:rolleyes: I am stating a possibility. Mock it if you will.

Am I the only person who finds it ironic that the "Christian" heritage of Europe came from the Middle East and was started by a Semitic Jew?

Am I the only person who finds it ironic that the "Christian" heritage of Europe came from the Middle East and was started by a Semitic Jew?
Israel is as distinct as you can get from the Middle East...even more ironic, btw, is that Christianity was rejected by the very people among which it first sprung...on the other hand, it became popular relatively fast within Europe, in lands such as Ancient Greece. Much of the Gospel is written in Ancient Greek, and later into Latin. Although its inception is in the Middle East, Christianity was largely embraced by Europe. And if to ascribe Jesus divine status, his nationality is completely irrelevant. He was the representative incarnation of a God, not a human of any particular nation.

Israel is as distinct as you can get from the Middle East...even more ironic, btw, is that Christianity was rejected by the very people among which it first sprung...on the other hand, it became popular relatively fast within Europe, in lands such as Ancient Greece. Much of the Gospel is written in Ancient Greek, and later into Latin. Although its inception is in the Middle East, Christianity was largely embraced by Europe. And if to ascribe Jesus divine status, his nationality is completely irrelevant. He was the representative incarnation of a God, not a human of any particular nation.

Correct; however, it does show that Europe's strongest asset is its ability to embrace and adapt new cultural elements in to itself.

Rather than being concerned that Europe is "dying" by rejecting its beliefs, we should be more concerned about the inability (or unwillingness) of Muslims to integrate themselves in to European culture. This ethnocentrism (on both sides) is the threat, not the death of Europe from within.

Correct; however, it does show that Europe's strongest asset is its ability to embrace and adapt new cultural elements in to itself.

Rather than being concerned that Europe is "dying" by rejecting its beliefs, we should be more concerned about the inability (or unwillingness) of Muslims to integrate themselves in to European culture. This ethnocentrism (on both sides) is the threat, not the death of Europe from within.
Exactly. The PC culture is beginning to die off as problems are mounting within Western societies. We have been ignoring them rather than solving them. Perhaps this will wake Europe up.

Europe will rise again. The demographic trends, even though they've been become rather alarming as of late (I'm sorry, but projections for a European country to become 40% Muslim within 25 years are totally scary), will slowly stabilise. Why? I think the West is going to wake up and realise that it has to defend itself. Cultural war against Islam in defence of Western society will begin, one in which Europe will rise victorious.

Europe will rise again. The demographic trends, even though they've been become rather alarming as of late (I'm sorry, but projections for a European country to become 40% Muslim within 25 years are totally scary), will slowly stabilise. Why? I think the West is going to wake up and realise that it has to defend itself. Cultural war against Islam in defence of Western society will begin, one in which Europe will rise victorious.
Although this is a tad bit exaggerated, I agree that Europe will wake up and step up the pace of its birth rates at some point. I think immigration to Europe will fall anyway as China and India rise, becoming more viable as places to live in. Russia might join the EU out of necessity.

If, however, Europe does become 40% Muslim, or perhaps a much higher majority, and this majority is oppressive, then we will have a problem. We have to make sure all immigrants integrate well and can contribute to our economy and culture. Otherwise, no entry. Just allowing immigrants in as cheap labour will create massive problems later. Any country which follows this technique is bound to fail, as it ignores its own problems, and in fact exacerbates them.

I never said you assumed that. I was referring to what seems to be the general assumption behind most posts in this thread, namely that only caucasians have racist tendencies, which is completely unfounded.

No one is making such an assumption, not even Greenlander. You keep making this claim but no one has suggesting such a thing. We are simply not assuming that said minorities MUST be racist. You seem to be trying to say that if we don't assume they are racist then we are assuming they can't be. In adsense of evidence that they are going to be racist we assume there is nothing wrong with them entering Europe. That's a normal assumption. What is your evidence that they are going to be?

Although this is a tad bit exaggerated, I agree that Europe will wake up and step up the pace of its birth rates at some point. I think immigration to Europe will fall anyway as China and India rise, becoming more viable as places to live in. Russia might join the EU out of necessity.

If, however, Europe does become 40% Muslim, or perhaps a much higher majority, and this majority is oppressive, then we will have a problem. We have to make sure all immigrants integrate well and can contribute to our economy and culture. Otherwise, no entry. Just allowing immigrants in as cheap labour will create massive problems later. Any country which follows this technique is bound to fail, as it ignores its own problems, and in fact exacerbates them.

Hey, look more assertions of the oppressive minorities. I notice you didn't chastise the claim that 40% Muslims is scary. Have an agenda much? Come on, at least hide your intentions just a little bit.

No one is making such an assumption, not even Greenlander. You keep making this claim but no one has suggesting such a thing. We are simply not assuming that said minorities MUST be racist. You seem to be trying to say that if we don't assume they are racist then we are assuming they can't be. In adsense of evidence that they are going to be racist we assume there is nothing wrong with them entering Europe. That's a normal assumption. What is your evidence that they are going to be?
The actions of some Islamic radicals. Weimar Germany was not a particularly racist environment. Yet, all it took was bad socio-economic conditions, and extremists quickly preached extremely virulent forms of racism. Islamic extremists might be confronted with similar "opportunities," as many young Muslim immigrants are poor and unemployed. They may divert this hatred to serve their own purposes, thus turning a non-racist majority into one which is. They may even evoke the "historical battle between West and Islam" to justify their racism. There are still those that believe that Islam must be spread by sword and fire. So its a possibility.

No it's not. Nothing I said assumed such a thing. Nor would this relevant. Two wrongs don't make a right, do they?



Yes... rally my white brothers, God save us from the darkies! :eek:

He was trying to converse with you about something...and this is your only reply....what the hell man, grow up.

Hey, look more assertions of the oppressive minorities. I notice you didn't chastise the claim that 40% Muslims is scary. Have an agenda much? Come on, at least hide your intentions just a little bit.
If its the poster's belief that that is scary, its their problem. Not mine.

If its the poster's belief that that is scary, its their problem. Not mine.

I see. It's their problem if they say something racist, but if we suggest someone might say something racist, then it's your problem. I see. More evidence of your agenda.

The actions of some Islamic radicals. Weimar Germany was not a particularly racist environment. Yet, all it took was bad socio-economic conditions, and extremists quickly preached extremely virulent forms of racism. Islamic extremists might be confronted with similar "opportunities," as many young Muslim immigrants are poor and unemployed. They may divert this hatred to serve their own purposes, thus turning a non-racist majority into one which is. They may even evoke the "historical battle between West and Islam" to justify their racism. There are still those that believe that Islam must be spread by sword and fire. So its a possibility.
Uh-huh? And this is a reason to treat it as if it WILL happen. No one is claiming it's not possible. You claim it's likely. You've already revealed your agenda. We all recognize you for what you are.

Uh-huh? And this is a reason to treat it as if it WILL happen. No one is claiming it's not possible. You claim it's likely. You've already revealed your agenda. We all recognize you for what you are.
You people really don't get suppositions do you? I am contemplating something, not advocating my support for the belief. Its a fictional scenario, one that could happen. I never said its likely either. If you can't see that, well I can't help you.

I see. It's their problem if they say something racist, but if we suggest someone might say something racist, then it's your problem. I see. More evidence of your agenda.
What I meant is that the poster's statement had no relevance to the argument I was going to make, so I made no attempt to condone/refute it. Clear now? :rolleyes: