Everyone - don't make it about the posters and avoid no/low content posts please

What evidence, that he is an immigrant and has come to unacceptable conclusions by the standards of your warped ideology? And of course, since you have nothing concrete you go straight to name calling.

Can you tell me where you got this 'pensioners will be starving' in absence of mass immigration BS from? Was it an article from that commie site with a hammer and sickle banner you linked me to earlier?

The evidence is his wiki page from which that excerpt I quoted was taken, which also shows that his theories, far from being "solid and factual" as you claim, have attracted some criticism for his methodology.

I can understand that, as a fellow second generation immigrant you might feel an affinity with his anti-immigration views (conflicted much?), but it's strange that you and he both favour policies which had they been imposed on your parents would have meant you being denied the relatively attractive lifestyle that you have and which others would now like to experience.

Re. Pensioners. Have you not heard of the baby boomer generation? Maybe you regard it as FAKE NEWS because the increased burden on the state of pensions is a main driver behind immigration, and is a problem for the far right like you who believe in the concept of racial purity.

What does your man say about it?

This criticism has been effectively debunked, when pressed on the issue these professors would not even share what their criteria for calling some of Tinos sources unscientific, instead they cross checked a peer reviewed database and called anything missing there unvalid. These people are activists abusing their title to discredit Tino Sanandaji, but since they are leftists lying and deceiving is likely second nature for them.

I am not conflicted at all, there was a breaking point sometime in the 80's when immigration to Sweden went from an economic net positive to a net negative. Most of our immigration used to be labor immigration and since the age demographics of this immigration were favorable the effect on the total economy was positive as a result.

Our immigration over the last 30 years has been mostly asylum immigration and their families who come later, despite the favorable age demographics Tino shows that this immigration has been a net loss and will continue to be a net loss for the overall economy. Among the reason for this are the high unemployment numbers and low wages of these immigrants. These calculations and references to the research behind it are not in question. Even the leftist KTH professors who wrote that hitpiece on him could not find anything concrete to remark on.

btw, my parents are western european immigrants, i don't think my standard of living would have been much different had they not immigrated.

These arguments are addressed in the book, i'll get back to this part later, but to make it short he argues that immigration with a net cost just further burdens the system instead of alleviating an aging demographic. Manpower has never been a problem for taking care of the elderly, it is largely an economic issue.

About the racial purity part, I don't even know where you get this stuff from, is the commie sources that blame everything on Nazism the reason you bring up this nonsense? I am not even a patriot, I will emigrate from Sweden if possible when/if things get bad here.

I am for a limited economically viable immigration policy regardless of where these immigrants come from, I do however think that our secular values need to be aggressively enforced, Islamists can not be given an inch because everything about their ideology is in sharp contrast to the Western values that have allowed us to prosper.

The racial purity part was a reference to you a week or two ago referring to your parents as not being Swedish because they migrated from another unspecified country a long time ago. If they hold Swedish passports and are Swedish citizens, surely that makes them Swedish?

Do you regard Ibrahimovic as being Swedish?



Do you realise that when you say

it's likely to be interpreted in a very negative way given the sensitivity of the subject and the ambiguity of the word "aggressively"?

Can you expound this?

[QUOTE=jalfrezi;52274203] They are not native Swedish and quite frankly they don't identify as Swedish, they are not shy about it either, they will tell that to any Swede if asked about it. I do not see any problem with that, heck I used to root against Sweden when Finland played Sweden in icehockey, I have gradually come to identify myself as a Swede though.

Zlatan identifies himself as a Swede foremost, he is a Swede.

Is that acceptable to you?

Perhaps that was a bad choice of word, but what I mean is that religious values should not get any additional rights or protection by law. I am against hate speech laws for example. The right to offend is important, Islamism deserves to be ridiculed and exposed for all its immorality.

Imagine if we tried to make a Muslim version of Life of Brian, there would be riots and murder worldwide. This implied threat of violence is one reason Islamism has grown worldwide and why moderate Muslims are getting ever more marginalized. The ability and right to offend and be offended is a healthy sign of a functioning society. Pretending that problems don't exist and hoping that they go away by ignoring them is a recipe for disaster, I am saddened to see that chezlaw believes in that approach.

You're conflating inciting hatred with the right to offend people, a mistake often made by the far right.

A film like The Life Of Brian is making fun of Christianity and by implication of all organised religion. I don't think anyone should shy away from making the equivalent film about Islam, apart from the fact that it's now been "done".

I support Rushdie being free to write The Satanic Verses and condemn the Ayatollah for putting a fatwa on him.

Both of these are free from claims of inciting racial hatred.

Standing on a public platform, for instance, shouting about how Muslims are terrorists does not meet the same criteria and should be a criminal offence (and is in the UK).

FWIW Monty Python said The Life Of Brian made fun of religious fundamentalism, not Christianity per se.

Actually, don't you think it's more like a gated community where the security guard checks everyone who gets in before they're allowed to wander around? Do you have a problem with that?

Good God when the 'regular' Life of Brian was released there were protests and people picketed the cinemas and the Monty Python cast received death threats. Yeah, the non-Muslim version!

Why do you people insist on being ignorant and wrong about EVERYthing?

He's not wrong. Let's imagine the Muslim Life of Brian movie and then compare that to what you say happened when the Christian Life of Brian movie came out.

Charlie Hebdo took the piss out of all religions and those belonging to one killed cartoonists in retaliation.

There is one religion that is more dangerous to mock than all the others. Not at all saying that Christianity doesn't have its fair share of nut bags as well though.

You're an actual sentient adult human, huh?

This ^^^ response reads as silence to me. There is no content.

This vvv is a decent starting point.

pokerodox, you've mistakenly attributed a Marn quote to me.

Very strange. Not sure how that happened. Thanks for the correction.

^^^ There it is again. I quoted jalfrezi, but came out as shown above.

If you quote a broken quote it remains broken and messes things up.

I think I fixed the wonky quotes. Let me know if everything is not correct at this point.

Thanks both. The problem is between keyboard and chair (mine), I'm pretty sure. I prolly broke the quotes both times.

We should probably stop pretending you're capable of actually discussing anything.

Very well, five. I accept your offer. I'll try to stop discussing things with you. I can't promise 100% restraint, but I'll make the effort from now on.

Hahaha are you seriously arguing that Muslims aren't more oversensitive to mockery than other religions?

HAHAHA

wait