NationStates Jolt Archive

Is, in my opinion, one of the greatest threats faced by any nation today. In Sweden, for instance, Islamic immigration has caused serious strains on their welfare system. Interestingly, instead of becoming less dependant, they become more dependant on welfare[1], while not contribituing to the Swedish economy as much as is commonly believied[2]. In Sweden, rape has also increased, and foreign populations are the prime suspects[3].



But it's not a purely Swedish problem. The entire Europe population is being effected. In his book While Europe Slept Bruce Bawrer provides convincing evidence which points to the poor cultural assimilation of Muslims stemming in no small part from European racism and lax welfare policies, which encourage Islamic immigrants to congregate in the famed ghettos[4]. The culture they bring with them is no improvement; honor killings, spousal abuse[6][7], and an overall disregard of human rights are not uncommon[8], and they show few signs of integrating well[9]

What are, quite frankly, atrocious abuses are seemingly ignored by most of the population, when they should be one of our top priorities, since a sharp decline among the birthrate of Europeans and higher birthrate among an increasing population of largely illegal Muslim immigrants could spell disaster for the entire western world.


http://www.frisch.uio.no/sammendrag/473_eng.html
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/227
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/12/immigrant-rape-wave-in-sweden.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3417429.stm
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002947.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4051791.stm#lubna
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12812607/
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=cache:psBD9LSGv_sJ:marketing.byu.edu/htmlpages/ccrs/proceedings05/staninger.doc+reasons+for+Islamic+Ghettos

Perhaps you could post the link to whatever it is you copied, so that we can look at the footnotes too to see how well the argument is defended.

Perhaps you could post the link to whatever it is you copied, so that we can look at the footnotes too to see how well the argument is defended.

Excuse me? I didn't "copy" anything.

Excuse me? I didn't "copy" anything.

Fine, then post the citations that correspond to your footnotes.

Fine, then post the citations that correspond to your footnotes.
Come on. there's maybe two slightly questionable sources on there.

Fine, then post the citations that correspond to your footnotes.

Dont you see the links?

Come on. there's maybe two slightly questionable sources on there.

Are those links supposed to be defending or supporting your argument?

Am I to assume that your first point is then supported by the first link?

Because it doesn't. It shows the abstract for a study that correlates welfare use among different immigrant groups. It makes no claims whatsoever about Islamic immigration and the strain it causes on the Swedish welfare system, if any.

Would you like me to continue to the next footnote, or would you like me to wait until you find another link for this point?

Dont you see the links?

You mean the ones that don't support his argument? Certainly.

Are those links supposed to be defending or supporting your argument?

Am I to assume that your first point is then supported by the first link?

Because it doesn't. It shows the abstract for a study that correlates welfare use among different immigrant groups. It makes no claims whatsoever about Islamic immigration and the strain it causes on the Swedish welfare system, if any.

Would you like me to continue to the next footnote, or would you like me to wait until you find another link for this point?


Non-western immigrants in Norway are shown to rely heavily on welfare transfers for several years after immigration. While refugee immigrants assimilate slightly out of welfare, other non-western immigrants assimilate rapidly into welfare.


This is not an academic paper. Use common sense. Most non-western immigrants to Scandinavia are muslim. Norwegian and Swedish welfare systems are quite alike. The conclusions for Norway is more likely to be valid for Sweden than invalid. Hence "other non-western immigrants assimilate rapidly into welfare." in Sweden, probably...

Are those links supposed to be defending or supporting your argument?

Am I to assume that your first point is then supported by the first link?

Because it doesn't. It shows the abstract for a study that correlates welfare use among different immigrant groups. It makes no claims whatsoever about Islamic immigration and the strain it causes on the Swedish welfare system, if any.

Would you like me to continue to the next footnote, or would you like me to wait until you find another link for this point?
"They become more dependant on the welfare system"
"Non-western immigrants in Norway are shown to rely heavily on welfare transfers for several years after immigration."

It seems to support it to me.

I was wondering where NN had wandered off to.

Is, in my opinion, one of the greatest threats faced by any nation today. In Sweden, for instance, Islamic immigration has caused serious strains on their welfare system. Interestingly, instead of becoming less dependant, they become more dependant on welfare[1],
Norway is not Sweden. And vauge Non-Western immigration doesn't impress me without actual numbers and sources.

while not contribituing to the Swedish economy as much as is commonly believied[2].
And again, Norway is not Sweden (Or maybe it is. Maybe Norway has invaded and taken over Sweden and we just don't know it yet).

In Sweden, rape has also increased, and foreign populations are the prime suspects[3].
A blog... A blog as a source, and a discreditied blog at that. Pass.

But it's not a purely Swedish problem. The entire Europe population is being effected. In his book While Europe Slept Bruce Bawrer provides convincing evidence which points to the poor cultural assimilation of Muslims stemming in no small part from European racism and lax welfare policies, which encourage Islamic immigrants to congregate in the famed ghettos[4].
I think you're missing a note here because your agrument doesn't seem to match the BBC article.

The culture they bring with them is no improvement; honor killings, spousal abuse[6][7], and an overall disregard of human rights are not uncommon[8], and they show few signs of integrating well[9]
So far all you have shown in first generation/second generation. Do you have any third? Usually by the third generation full intergration has occured irrigardless of the wishes of the previous generations (for example, the United States).

What are, quite frankly, atrocious abuses are seemingly ignored by most of the population, when they should be one of our top priorities, since a sharp decline among the birthrate of Europeans and higher birthrate among an increasing population of largely illegal Muslim immigrants could spell disaster for the entire western world.
And how do you know they are illegal? This is where we get the jump off into la-la land and off into "Oh noes! The 3v1L Muslims are coming to rape the sheep and set fire to our womans" speculation.

You know, when I research this more, I find myself becoming sorry that I made this thread. I'll freely admit that I am, in this matter, and for the most part, wrong.

It was made more out of emotion than logic.

You know, when I research this more, I find myself becoming sorry that I made this thread. I'll freely admit that I am, in this matter, and for the most part, wrong.

It was made more out of emotion than logic.

That was pretty big of you to say, most people never like to admit to being wrong or emotive on various issues. I'm impressed. :)

"Oh noes! The 3v1L Muslims are coming to rape the sheep and set fire to our womans"

Has this become the standard response to these threads?

Has this become the standard response to these threads?
It works out pretty well. There's a major difference between making a good argument (which he did in the middle with data about 1st and 2nd generation immigrants and how to bring them into the fold) and then going off into this will be the death of [Insert area here] because the Muslims are taking over.

I hate all people who did not look like me, exactly. So me and my clone army shall take ze world for us alone.:cool:

It works out pretty well. There's a major difference between making a good argument (which he did in the middle with data about 1st and 2nd generation immigrants and how to bring them into the fold) and then going off into this will be the death of [Insert area here] because the Muslims are taking over.

There's also a major difference between responding intelligently with a well thought out argument, and mocking the poster. It seems for every thread about the Muslim migration to Europe there is at least one post which mocks the OP. Now while the argument that Muslims are gradually taking over Europe might be silly, I'm sure mocking it isn't the answer. Which is funny, because while the vast majority of generalites think this is ridiculous, they rarely present any evidence to the contrary. Instead, they resort to ridiculing the OP views. Just my 2 cents.

There's also a major difference between responding intelligently with a well thought out argument, and mocking the poster. It seems for every thread about the Muslim migration to Europe there is at least one post which mocks the OP. Now while the argument that Muslims are gradually taking over Europe might be silly, I'm sure mocking it isn't the answer. Which is funny, because while the vast majority of generalites think this is ridiculous, they rarely present any evidence to the contrary. Instead, they resort to ridiculing the OP views. Just my 2 cents.
Which is why when he was presenting actual data, I responded in kind. But when the argument goes off into areas such as this, I feel no compulsion to respond seriously less I add weight to such an argument.

Which is why when he was presenting actual data, I responded in kind. But when the argument goes off into areas such as this, I feel no compulsion to respond seriously less I add weight to such an argument.

I disagree. I think when people refuse to respond seriously to an argument (no matter how erroneous it might be) it has the opposite effect. That is to say, the person mocking the OP is doing so because they have no reputable evidence to the contrary.

I disagree. I think when people refuse to respond seriously to an argument (no matter how erroneous it might be) it has the opposite effect. That is to say, the person mocking the OP is doing so because they have no reputable evidence to the contrary.

Generally when an argument is based on the premise of ethnic/religious fear, bigotry, animosity or paranoia; there isn't much to 'argue' against. If someone is afraid of $minority_group$ they're not going to stop being afraid, etc no matter what 'evidence' is presented. Especially if it's the kind of fear like, "Oh no, people of my ethnicity might become a minority!" Because that's not a fear I respect. Nothing wrong with being a minority.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

You know, when I research this more, I find myself becoming sorry that I made this thread. I'll freely admit that I am, in this matter, and for the most part, wrong.

It was made more out of emotion than logic.

Good for you!

It takes a strong person to admit when they are wrong, or believe what they said was wrong.

Generally when an argument is based on the premise of ethnic/religious fear, bigotry, animosity or paranoia; there isn't much to 'argue' against. If someone is afraid of $minority_group$ they're not going to stop being afraid, etc no matter what 'evidence' is presented. Especially if it's the kind of fear like, "Oh no, people of my ethnicity might become a minority!" Because that's not a fear I respect. Nothing wrong with being a minority.

There have been plenty of threads here where people of sound, rational character have debated religious fanatics and Nazi's. I don't see what is so different about this.

And one more thing, I think most people who make these threads expressing concerns over Islamic immigration to Europe aren't afraid of becomming a minority, but are afraid of the culture of the immigrants completely replacing their own.

There have been plenty of threads here where people of sound, rational character have debated religious fanatics and Nazi's.

That's true. And those are generally the sorts of arguments that produce nothing but an exercise in how to argue (or how not to argue). Why waste the energy? Mockery is more fun and frankly, more deserving for the types of silliness that pervades religious fanaticism and fucking scumbag racist bigotry.

And one more thing, I think most people who make these threads expressing concerns over Islamic immigration to Europe aren't afraid of becomming a minority, but are afraid of the culture of the immigrants completely replacing their own.

Right, they're afraid of their *culture* becoming a minority. Whatever. It's not a fear I respect. If they want their culture to survive, whining about the horrid existence of other cultures is not going to do a damn thing and being hostile towards immigration or religion or ethnicity is just going to make people like me say, "Gosh, your wonderful and tolerant culture of bigotry is threatened? Where's my fucking violin, I have so much sympathy for you this requires a sad, sad song!"

And frankly when people like Ny Nordland, say, use the "culture" route they mean race and ethnicity but are trying to be politically correct and intellectually dishonest.

I disagree. I think when people refuse to respond seriously to an argument (no matter how erroneous it might be) it has the opposite effect. That is to say, the person mocking the OP is doing so because they have no reputable evidence to the contrary.
I would qualify that statement though. If, perhaps, there is a clear chain of reasoning why such a statement is given that can be argued about, THEN a serious reply is needed. However, someone coming into the forum and screaming, for example, "Horses are spawns of the Devil and must be shot!" merits what? How do you respond seriously to such an argument or statement without lending a certain weight to an obviously biased statement?

That's why I use the sarcasm because I think it is warented to show how off base such a statement is.

To use this topic as an actual example, if th statement was "With Europe's declining birthrate, I am conserned about the effects of non-intergrated Muslims will have on the culture of Europe in the future. I believe that it will be a negative one" is a statement worthy of debate and a serious responce. It's a not a chicken little statement, it may have bias, but it's resonable. The statement as written, about this being the greatest threat that any nation faces and how Muslims will wipe out Europe... well... It's a set fire to the women and rape the sheep type of statement and I treat it as such.

There have been plenty of threads here where people of sound, rational character have debated religious fanatics and Nazi's. I don't see what is so different about this.
Depending upon the statement as written by said NAZI or religious fanatic.

That's true. And those are generally the sorts of arguments that produce nothing but an exercise in how to argue (or how not to argue). Why waste the energy? Mockery is more fun and frankly, more deserving for the types of silliness that pervades religious fanaticism and fucking scumbag racist bigotry.
Because when you logically argue with someone who holds an extremeist viewpoint you end up being the better man in the end, and exposing the other party for what they really are.


Right, they're afraid of their *culture* becoming a minority. Whatever. It's not a fear I respect. If they want their culture to survive, whining about the horrid existence of other cultures is not going to do a damn thing and being hostile towards immigration or religion or ethnicity is just going to make people like me say, "Gosh, your wonderful and tolerant culture of bigotry is threatened? Where's my fucking violin, I have so much sympathy for you this requires a sad, sad song!"

So we're debating the merits of Western Civilization now?

And frankly when people like Ny Nordland, say, use the "culture" route they mean race and ethnicity but are trying to be politically correct and intellectually dishonest.
Oh, so because one person uses it as an excuse it invalidates the whole argument. Thats like saying all Muslims are evil terrorists because a few of them blew themselves up in a crowded market.

Edit: NERVUN, I'll respond to your posts after I have a cigarette. brb

Edit: NERVUN, I'll respond to your posts after I have a cigarette. brb
No worries. I'm just enjoying the fact that we have hyjacked a thread after the OP has had a change of heart and are now debating about the logic of how to debate something.

Ah NS General. :D

I would qualify that statement though. If, perhaps, there is a clear chain of reasoning why such a statement is given that can be argued about, THEN a serious reply is needed. However, someone coming into the forum and screaming, for example, "Horses are spawns of the Devil and must be shot!" merits what? How do you respond seriously to such an argument or statement without lending a certain weight to an obviously biased statement?

That's why I use the sarcasm because I think it is warented to show how off base such a statement is.

To use this topic as an actual example, if th statement was "With Europe's declining birthrate, I am conserned about the effects of non-intergrated Muslims will have on the culture of Europe in the future. I believe that it will be a negative one" is a statement worthy of debate and a serious responce. It's a not a chicken little statement, it may have bias, but it's resonable. The statement as written, about this being the greatest threat that any nation faces and how Muslims will wipe out Europe... well... It's a set fire to the women and rape the sheep type of statement and I treat it as such.

When you write it out like that then I'm inclined to agree with you.

Depending upon the statement as written by said NAZI or religious fanatic.

Can you clarify this for me? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here.

In Sweden, rape has also increased, and foreign populations are the prime suspects[3].
You know, being suspected of a crime is a thing, being convicted after a fair trial is another.

The entire Europe population is being effected. In his book While Europe Slept Bruce Bawrer provides convincing evidence which points to the poor cultural assimilation of Muslims stemming in no small part from European racism and lax welfare policies, which encourage Islamic immigrants to congregate in the famed ghettos[4]. The culture they bring with them is no improvement; honor killings, spousal abuse[6][7], and an overall disregard of human rights are not uncommon[8], and they show few signs of integrating well[9].
Yea, that's correct. But you should consider a couple of things: time and original cultural difference. There was less cultural difference between the US and the italian immigrants than there is between Europe and the muslim immigrants, for example, yet it took a lot of time for italians to integrate in the US society. In the meanwhile, ALL italians in the US were regarded as a bunch of ignorants/anarchists/mafiosi just because of SOME of them. Like ALL muslim are seen nowadays as terrorists/rapists/fundamentalists etc. because of SOME of them. Give them time, the muslim immigrates will integrate in Europe. Ok, they will build mosques, so what's the problem?

Can you clarify this for me? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here.
Pretty much as noted above. Some statements by said fanatics of either stripe can be debated, and should be. For example, 5Castes's threads on legalizing pedrophillia, or Meanstoandend's threads on... well just about anything. Those threads, while driving me nuts, were well thought out and debateable.

4R's threads about how rap music proves that Blacks are lower life forms however...

Pretty much as noted above. Some statements by said fanatics of either stripe can be debated, and should be. For example, 5Castes's threads on legalizing pedrophillia, or Meanstoandend's threads on... well just about anything. Those threads, while driving me nuts, were well thought out and debateable.

4R's threads about how rap music proves that Blacks are lower life forms however...

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. And, what exactly is pedrophilia...?

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. And, what exactly is pedrophilia...?

Love of mexicans.

Love of mexicans.

Holler if you love burritos.

http://limewoody.wordpress.com/files/2006/04/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. And, what exactly is pedrophilia...?
*lol* Sorry, I mean pedophilia. Sadly, at home I use Fire Fox with its wonderful built in spell checker for forum use, but at work I'm stuck with IE. Add in a last hurried post before I left and... ;)

*lol* Sorry, I mean pedophilia. Sadly, at home I use Fire Fox with its wonderful built in spell checker for forum use, but at work I'm stuck with IE. Add in a last hurried post before I left and... ;)

Ooooooh. I feel a bit silly now.