Michael Hardner

Any people who come here can commit murder. Studies show that domestics are worse in some measures. That means across the board judgments are flawed, if you are using them to set policy.

1. I'm not claiming equivalence, I'm showing how wide statements like this are flawed. 2. But there is still a wrongdoing by a small minority attributed to the whole. I'm talking meta here.

1. Well... I have read that before. I can't think of other examples where people are blamed for the actions of the same subgroup and it's legitimate. Anti-Semitism in the face of Israel policies isn't accepted, blaming Christians for the Crusades etc. shouldn't be. I would say you're on shaky ground if you apply that principle. The descendents of the criminals, and the people who live in the same demographic group have to pay for those actions indirectly through attitudes. That includes every group, such as Christians. Every Catholic priest I have known personally is a wonderful person. But if they walk into a room, what are people thinking ? Are Catholics to blame for the abuse that Priests did ? What about Scout Leaders ? Tough one. 2. Reform Christians only exist in Western nations though, so we should allow them to flourish.

Oh, you're back... I had to scroll back to recall... you didn't insult me so let's keep going. The "belief system" is represented in a Holy Book replete with calls of violence towards the infidel. It's more violent than the Bible which has its own calls for violence towards enemies, stoning of gays and so on... But what to do ? Clearly we can't condemn a religion for having violence in their holy books. The idea seems to be that Christians don't take it literally... well... except fundamentalists... except they don't... except... No easy answers. I will state that Islamic Fundamentalism is a unique threat that deserves special attention, including security measures. But banning all Muslims from coming isn't a good idea for practical and moral purposes. I can make a better case for keeping African Americans out, and people recoil at that idea.

If you want me to continue, you should at least decide whether I am an honest poster or not. Otherwise, what do you expect me to do ? Spend time looking at numbers, arguments... only to have you say I'm biased, progressive, virtue-signalling when I'm done ? Why would I waste my time? Make up your mind if you want to discuss with me or not. I generally don't read posts from the progressives on here at all. I am my own person. I don't align with anyone.

Yeah, we're nearing the point where you can make such claims and NOT get called a Nazi. Certainly you can do that now for questions of "general" immigration policy. I don't call people Nazis as a general rule unless they self-identify as such. I think that happened one time on here...

I refuted your claims about PEW. At that point you started throwing personal comments... All done now, bye. Well... you know... I gave you a path forward. If you want to be a lazy sod and do like the others and make claims on my personality based on your own feminine "hunches" go at it. But ... what do you expect me to do ? Answer your claims that I don't care and I'm worried about progressive virtue signalling ? I'll tell you that the progressives come after me when they don't like what I post either... sometimes they cast aspersions on my personally. Anyway, let's park this then. I still like you...

All Muslims are at Religious War with Canada ? Try again... What I am getting at is there's no way to objectively screen "a people" out from coming here.

Ok.... I don't think there's much point in digging up old threads to prove I've been a bad discussion partner. You made your assessment of me, probably should close it off there. I will point out that the people who call me names and insult me continue to post to me, even when I am engaged with somebody else. Sorry I don't measure up... sincerely... Meh.... if something is true, there are facts to back it up. Keep looking and post it. Yeah, maybe they're importing young men who are rapists, but let's see about it instead of just rolling our eyes at each other.

Ok - are YOU then in favour of banning American Blacks, based on crime statistics. That is, no American Blacks allowed into Canada period. All good ? If not, why ? 1. Maybe ? I need more than screenshots though. I don't accept gut reactions to things, even my own.

1.2. You'll have to read the book to get the explanation. 3. I think i pointed out that you trust some of the press. If you use any cites on here, you likely trust SOME institutions enough, but maybe not fully. 4. We do have criminal courts for that. 5. "Increasing prosperity"... yes of course. You don't HAVE to import people but it sure makes it easier, which is why everybody does it. Your answer was "No, but..." and then the but part had nothing to do with my question. If there is statistical proof that Blacks are more likely to be violent criminals why would we let them in ? Ok... night night... (Michael tucks Legato into their blanket and smooches them on the forehead) I'm off to obfusgate and play my games elsewhere...

1. Uh... Have you LOOKED at this thread? I'm engaging with half a dozen people. 2. I pointed out that PEW has data that supports arguments that Muslims aren't good candidates for immigration. You haven't answered. Who's playing games? You aren't being a fair discussion partner here if you accuse me of gamesmanship but don't follow the discussion. 3. Like I said, I haven't called anyone a chud. If you want to insult me, I'm done. I'll ask you to retract, and then when you refuse I'll stop responding. Then you can wrap yourself in that cozy blanket of saying that I play games and refuse to engage.

1. 2. This is part of "Fast Thinking" as Daniel Kahneman explained in his famous book. Yes it's important. This board is or should be, about Slow Thinking. 3. By definition, experiences are different than logic. You can draw subjective conclusions from them but they might not make sense. 4. But does it make sense to expect to stop every bad person in a system that includes immigration? Is that tenable? 5. Growth. That would seem to say that we can import people with a controllable expectation of negative traits. Direct question: Should we stop allowing American Blacks in Canada even as tourists?

Yes I don't remember you being insulting. I'm challenged on this thread. Have I run away? I ignore people who insult me, but that's because I hold discussion on here to a higher standard, not because I am afraid.

1. Ok please post the data. 2. It's a conspiracy then. Well there is data available from elsewhere. American studies show the opposite of what you are trying to say. 3. I'm ASKING for facts. And the only person I see being called names in my discussions is me. Touché. I do peek sometimes but I will admit that. 💗

I don't have to engage with people who insult me. You understand that right? My logic on the use of PEW has been explained. Do you want to respond? Or just keep calling me ignorant? Or saying that I'm running out of oxygen? I'm fine with moving on if you're done responding to my points.

1. If you can accept chauvinism as a factor, I think you should include xenophobia. 2. If you agree that discrimination is involved, then I can accept your attitude even with the inherent bias I see. 3. You should want to do so using hard logic, then. 4. Same as yours peace and prosperity for Canada. When a single Afghani refugee murdered someone, there was a political impact to reject wholesale the idea of ANY Afghani refugee (not talking about the Washington DC shooting but an incident in Minnesota). How are people being protected when the rate of murder by refugees is lower than with homegrown citizens ? But, yes, I want peace and prosperity for Canada, especially economic because that makes EVERYTHING else work. You trust SOME institutions. The press is an institution. If you only trust personal experiences there will be many issues for which you have no reference at all.

1. Yes, Islamic violence is a problem not claiming otherwise. 2. We don't allow criminals, we don't allow threats of violence, but we do allow all faiths 3. I am not saying two different cultures are 'equivalent'. But you can't exclude or dehumanize an entire subgroup due to the actions of the worst people in that group. There's no principle that makes that work. 4. People cite "attitudes" towards LGBTQ as a problem sometimes. But we accept that Evangelicals have similar attitudes and we seem to accept that we can work through the politics of that. 5. The idea of excluding Muslims is always based on a qualitative decision that Muslims are, in essence, "bad people". But you can't separate decisions made that way from prejudice. I call forward the incident I mentioned before about excluding American blacks from entering Canada based on statistical reasons. I had a discussion with Argus way back when, and he said he was "ok" with it. I told him I respected his consistency...

You're skipping past my question. I, for one, didn't know if Muslims were assimilating and maybe suspected they weren't. Then I met a good source that explained it and I changed my views. Do you think it's ok for me to stick to my self-created ideas on how things are? If you cited some source that you know is true, say from your profession, and I said "no, I don't think so because of my experience"... would that be reasonable ? It's a general question about how people form knowledge...

Yes... new employees, especially certified offshore, need to have code reviews for ALL WORK through the probation period until you're satisfied that they are delivering. And, more generally, no one should ever get an assignment that is longer than 2 weeks or 10 business days in length. This is as per PMI standard, or at least was last time I checked the booklet... 10 years ago ? Wow... I have to update my creds...

My wife can't drive very well... nor can my sister... and my sister-in-law isn't great. Ipso/facto... women drivers, sheesh ! Am I right, gentlemen ??? Seriously, an objective mind has to accept the fact that they are sometimes wrong and be ready to accept objective sources to tell it so. Well... as an IT manager I can say for sure that one bad employee slacking off shouldn't set you back a year. Can't believe you folks didn't catch that sooner. Oh well, live and learn right ? 😆

Absolutely. But ask yourself this - if I gave you personal information that contradicted ... let's say ... "institutional" facts. Would you believe me ? Honest question. And ? Let's pretend that I know a guy from Alberta who is a total 1D10T. If I tell you that, does it change anything ? It shouldn't. I get that people don't TRUST institutional knowledge. I don't either. But PEW is used by people on both sides of the political spectrum and that means ... well, something.

I wasn't going to respond and didn't read your post, but glanced at this part. Sorry you feel that way, we did have a civil exchange recently. I still don't get why you post with me if I'm so terrible. Doesn't seem to check out, sorry. Anyway - moving on for now... I don't call people HERE Chuds, that would be an insult. If I have done that I retract. I speak of Chudism as a phenomenon of the public sphere, is all. I like you, keep posting

1. Biased ? PEW ? People use it on here to justify anti-Muslim beliefs so .... no. You seem like the kind of person who waits to read the results then calls "bias" when they don't like it. 2. And yet, there is convincing evidence. You don't believe because... well, we're not sure. I do. 3. Ok... and yet another person who runs out of ideas and then needs to insult me... carry on, we are done now.

1. Stop making personal comments. We started with different parameters to analyze the problem, that's it. I'm not going to go back to do research on "threats" against Muslims. Not enough time. I could go back to you and call you names and say you ignored Murders and missed the impact of the Quebec shootings but I am being respectful here and taking your arguments as honest. 2. You can't come up with objective statistics to assess the "evilness" of a subgroup of people. It's a Tower of Babel problem, because someone can always come up with a set to demonize any group including whites, Europeans, Christians etc. etc. I have seen posts demoning Christians and Jews both this week alone, based on "objective" stats. 3. No, that's ridiculous. Of course we investigate threats. Your assertion that there are more "threats" from one group has not been challenged by me in this conversation either. In the past here I got someone suspended, when they went off at my suggestion that they could use that framework to demonize Black Americans and ban them from coming here based on crime statistics. "How DARE YOU !" was the gist of his response back to me. 4. Ok, I'm out of time to respond and you're starting with your pejorative slams, and talking about the Liberal Party which I don't support so ... a good time to jump off this post. Have a day, my friend...