Does 'progressive racism' exist?

[Argus]

And so the "appeasers" of retrograde cultural views are not here the progressives--but the conservatives, and, until extremely recently, mainstream liberals.

I'm not sure we have a conservative party so much as Pragmatist party. I can recall when the Reform Party started up one of their main beefs was that despite a lot of disagreement amongst the general public, the three major parties marched in lockstep on important issues which affected society. The PCs, Liberals and NDP all agreed completely that immigration was great, that bilingualism was wonderful, that abortion was a sacred right, and that capital punishment was bad, among other things. There night have been some quibbling amongst the individual MPs, but the parties themselves stood together without a sliver of difference in their positions despite the fact that from 30%-60% of the public had major issues with those policies. The political elites didn't want to hear it. They had made their decisions and what the public wanted was irrelevent.

With the PCs, and Liberals, this was simply greasy politics. With the NDP, well, the left has always shown that it will do anything for and on behalf of minorities, regardless of whether it makes any sense for the majority. That's one of the reasons they've had no electoral success other than the one time blip last election which will be reversed next election.

And so it is with immigration once more. The "Conservatives", like the PCs before them, don't see anyone pushing them from the right, see nothing but total agreement from the left, so have decided to take advantage of ethnic politicing just like the PCs did. Thus it's what's good for the Conservative Party that matters, not what's good for Canada.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Argus

[dre]

I'm not sure we have a conservative party so much as Pragmatist party. I can recall when the Reform Party started up one of their main beefs was that despite a lot of disagreement amongst the general public, the three major parties marched in lockstep on important issues which affected society. The PCs, Liberals and NDP all agreed completely that immigration was great, that bilingualism was wonderful, that abortion was a sacred right, and that capital punishment was bad, among other things. There night have been some quibbling amongst the individual MPs, but the parties themselves stood together without a sliver of difference in their positions despite the fact that from 30%-60% of the public had major issues with those policies. The political elites didn't want to hear it. They had made their decisions and what the public wanted was irrelevent.

With the PCs, and Liberals, this was simply greasy politics. With the NDP, well, the left has always shown that it will do anything for and on behalf of minorities, regardless of whether it makes any sense for the majority. That's one of the reasons they've had no electoral success other than the one time blip last election which will be reversed next election.

And so it is with immigration once more. The "Conservatives", like the PCs before them, don't see anyone pushing them from the right, see nothing but total agreement from the left, so have decided to take advantage of ethnic politicing just like the PCs did. Thus it's what's good for the Conservative Party that matters, not what's good for Canada.

The political parties just take their queues from the financial, commerce, and banking sectors just like they always do, and for the most part always have. These elected politicians dont know the first thing about economics or immigration.

[-1=e^ipi]

I have no idea why you think I've argued otherwise, and from where you summon the qualifier "still"; it's as if you really believe this is part of our ongoing dispute.

That was a rhetorical question. I apologize if my writing was unclear. And rhetorical question or not, the fact that "Still don't believe that verses in islamic texts justify terrorist attacks?" has a question mark sort of means it is a question and I am not making assumptions about your position. Learn reading comprehension please.

And I think this illustrates part of my criticism of Condell: the invention of a dispute, and the assumptions of others' positions.

Please give a specific example of Pat Condell making an assumption on someone's position.

Again, I was asking you what is this alleged "Progressive ideology," not for a litany of perceived weaknesses that some progressives might indulge in.

Perhaps this wikipedia article on progressivism will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Though I will admit that the article deals more with economic 'progressivism' and historic 'progressivism' rather than the social 'progressivism' that Pat Condell talks about.

And the idea that the faults of liberals, conservatives, and others are ultimately the fault of some sinister entity called "progressivism"--which you as of yet have remained unwilling or unable to even define (and have said elsewhere that only some progressives are guilty of "it," whatever "it" is....appeasement of evil, evidently)....well, the idea is preposterous on its face.

We really need to be careful and clear of which definitions of 'conservative', 'liberal' and 'progressive' that we are using as the definitions of these words are many. The definitions vary based on geographic location and have changed over time. In many cases the meanings of these words have nearly swapped such as 'progressivism' and 'liberalism' in the united states (liberalism is usually considered more 'left' than progressivism) or economic 'conservatism' and economic 'liberalism' is now considered less statist than economic 'liberalism' (when originally 'conservatism' was far more statist, especially during the french revolutionary period).

Edit: in many cases it can be more useful to be more specific in our labels, such as using 'classical liberalism', 'neoliberalism' or 'the perverted definition of the word liberal that the Americans use', rather than 'liberalism'.

We should also recognize that 'progressivism' is a much more recent ideology than 'liberalism' (by about 100 years) and their origins are quite different. Liberalism has origins in the 18th century, can be traced back to philosophers such as Locke and Voltaire, influenced events such as the french revolution & the american revolution and was quite focused on individualism & freedom (though classical liberalism should not be confused with libertarianism). Progressivism on the other hand had origins in the 19th century, was influenced by philosophers such as Hegel and Marx (though you shouldn't confuse progressivism with communism) and was especially influential after the great depression in advocating worker's rights and creating a social safety net.

Even in Canada, we can see this temporal difference. The liberal-conservative divide was around since confederation, but it wasn't until the 1930's that 'progressive' parties (such as the CCF, later becoming the NDP, and the Progressive Party, later merging to create the progressive conservatives). Though in more recent Canadian history (especially when the PC, NDP and LPC parties all considered themselves progressive) 'progressive' has often been used to mean not socially conservative (though of course not being socially conservative is more related to classical liberalism than classical progressivism).

Anyway, I think a lot of disagreement in this thread stems from some posters' failure to accept that these words have many definitions and the definition that say Pat Condell uses for 'progressive' differs from what they may be used to it meaning. That said, with respect to my earlier comments on Pat Condell accepting the fact that the left played a strong role in advocating social change such as gender and racial equality, I want to clarify that these changes were not brought about due to 'progressivism' but rather 'liberalism'. 'Liberalism' has long advocated for equality under the law, long before 'progressivism' even existed. On the other hand, many 'progressive' concepts such as affirmative action or the continuation of the Canadian reserve system (though the Canadian reserve system wasn't created due to 'progressivism') are contrary to equality under the law.

but everybody's at fault, according to this existentially catastrophic worldview: conservatives, liberals, the media, everybody.

Again, we should emphasize the ideologies not the people who classify themselves under those ideologies.

In which case "progressivism" is not a useful term, because it means nothing more or less than "Western society."

I think you are confusing 'progressivism' and 'liberalism', but either way I wouldn't classify all of Western Society under one ideology.

Edited October 30, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[eyeball]

In any case, racists come in all ismologies. They stick out like sore thumbs.

[-1=e^ipi]

Not in an unqualified way, no.

Can you please define what you mean by unqualified way? I believe I asked for a definition earlier...

Either way, the uOttawa paper suggests changes to Canada's immigration system to improve the quality of immigrants by making the system more preferable to immigrants with higher human capital qualities.

No, you couldn't capture all the important factors.

And again, you challenge ME to prove your case. See error #5 above.

I have provided a list of the non-cultural factors that I think are important (schooling, work experience, physical capital, human capital quality, language skills, etc.) in determining an immigrant's income. All of these things can be measured/estimated (directly or indirectly) or there are good proxy variables to use for these (test scores for language skills for example).

Now the reason why I challenged you to list other non-cultural, important factors is because: 1. Including more factors in a model more closely approximates reality and can give better results. 2. If I did not ask you to come up with other factors, I expected that you or someone else would reply by saying that 'differences in income after the effects of the factors that you have listed have been deducted aren't necessarily due to culture but could be due to some non-cultural factor that you have not listed'. And while the statement is true, the burden of proof lies on you to show that these 'factors that I have not listed' exist. Or the least you could do is name them. If we can't even name what other factors could significantly influence differences in income between immigrant groups of different countries of origin, then the more reasonable approach is to conclude that differences in income after the effects of the listed non-cultural factors have been deducted should be primarily due to the effects of culture.

It does. But your assessment of what it calculates is at odds with what the paper says.

My 'assessment' with no elaboration... How very specific of you! *sarcasm*

Not my job to prove your point. See error #5 again.

I mention that there are hundreds of results on a google scholar search, and even provide links to two papers, and somehow you interpret that as me asking you to prove my point? Since when is providing evidence asking the other person to prove your point? You have a very warped perspective.

No. What are you using these papers to support ? Please restate your point. The papers are fine, I'm sure, but are you trying to use them, for example, to ban Muslim immigration ? Please state your argument, and how these papers support it.

I went through so many econometrics papers and found two that are very relevant to the discussion, especially on the quality of immigrants from different countries of origin. And you won't even look at them? That makes me sad.

I'll try to be clear, so please be understanding:

- Before we can establish whether Canada's immigration policy should favour non-muslim countries over muslim countries, we need to first establish whether Canada's immigration policy should (or at least be open to the idea of) favour immigrants from some countries over immigrants from other countries.

- I feel like many people in this thread are simply not open to the idea of favouring immigrants from some countries over others regardless of the reason. Why some people might not be open to this idea? I'm not sure. It could be not wanting to appear racist, it could be due to an adherence to the ideology of cultural relativism, or it could be due to people simply having never considered the idea. This is why I think it's important to at least establish that Canada should favour immigrants from some countries over others.

- This is why I have referenced these 3 papers. All 3 suggest that Canada should favour immigrants from some countries over immigrants from other countries. The reason many not be islamism (these papers mostly discuss human capital quality instead), but that doesn't matter in establishing that Canada should favour immigrants from some countries over immigrants from other countries. The comparison paper between Canada and the United States is very useful here as it clearly demonstrates that the greater quality of immigrants to Canada vs the immigrants to the United States is due primarily to a different origin-country composition (which is due to differences in immigration policy).

- Once we establish that Canada should favour immigrants in some countries over others, then we can start to discuss the merits or drawbacks on trying to modify the immigration policy to favour non-muslims over muslims and/or favor immigration from non-muslim countries vs muslim countries.

Also, I have never suggested banning muslim immigration. That would be infeasible and it would be somewhat morally wrong to ban people from entering the country based on beliefs (ironically, sharia law has no problem banning immigrants based on beliefs such as polytheists).

Hmmmm... a search of those two papers for the word 'better' shows:

Paper 1 - no hits for 'better'.

Paper 2 - Used to describe better measure, better specifications, better understanding.

So the papers do not say that immigrants from some countries are 'better'.

This is error #1 - starting with your own conclusion, then working backwards to say that these studies prove them.

I have pointed this out to you and you keep doing it, wasting my time.

You really like playing with my wording to avoid acknowledging the results and conclusions of these econometrics papers.

Have you not heard of paraphrasing?

Same thing. Error #5. Prove your point without my help.

Much like the burden of proof lying on the person claiming that 'god exists' rather than 'god doesn't exist', the burden of proof lies on the person claiming that 'there exist ideologies that are a bigger threat to the west than islamism' rather than the person claiming that 'there do not exist ideologies that are a bigger threat to the west than islamism'.

You keep claiming that there exist things, but will not name them. Then suggest that i'm demanding that you prove my point for me. Do you not see how backwards this is? If you claim something exists, the least you could do is name it so I can at least argue against why it does not exist.

Yes, due to error #5.

You and 'the creationists that demand atheists prove that god doesn't exist' have a lot in common, don't you?

You are much more charming when you finally admit an error.

Is it that unusual to admit when you are wrong or the correct yourself?

'Human capital quality' - yes, and the paper does say that, but culture... I don't see it.

I never claimed the papers discuss culture. The papers are there to at least establish that Canada's immigration policy should favour some countries over others, and they also help demonstrate econometrics methodology to other posters (which I think is a useful tool in testing hypothesis and determining which countries should be favoured and by how much).

Let's focus the next thread on how you would measure/codify 'culture'. How do you propose doing that ?

Agree that Canada's immigration policy should favour some countries over others (even if it's just for human capital quality) and then we can begin to discuss how to measure culture, why culture affects income, and if we should favour immigration from some countries over others based on culture.

Edited October 30, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

And so the "appeasers" of retrograde cultural views are not here the progressives--but the conservatives, and, until extremely recently, mainstream liberals.

Again, we have to be really careful of definitions here. And again we have to look at what is influencing people to do certain things (be they progressives, conservatives or liberals) otherwise we are just using a form of guilt by association. I agree that there are some aspects of conservative ideology that might make one 'appease' retrograde cultural views (usually because conservatism often involves religious traditionalism with its own retrograde cultural views), and progressivism can also cause one to 'appease' retrograde culture views (due to different reasons such as progressive racism or cultural relativism; again using Pat Condell's definition of progressivism), but I do not see why liberalism (or at least classical liberalism) would cause someone to be an appeaser.

Wow, I should read your responses to the others more often. On this one, you're backtracking on something you said in your response to ME.

I'm not backtracking, I'm clarifying my position.

[-1=e^ipi]

First of all, I don't think it is at all a common term...it's virtually non-existent, in fact.

Maybe it hasn't happened to you (perhaps because you do not have views that some might consider anti-Canadian), but it has happened to me and to people I know. It has happened in political debates (I have seen NDP, Green and LPC members make this accusation). The anti-Canadian or un-Canadian claims aren't always direct, they can be indirect (such as federal debates where Paul Martin said that American values and Canadian values are different, therefore implying that American values are un-Canadian).

Anyway, here are 2 examples of the use of "anti-Canadian":

Example of anti-Canadian being used to describe a position against Canada's health care system: http://www.nowpublic.com/health/ontario-woman-defends-anti-canadian-style-health-care-ad

Example of a progressive blogger calling Stephen Harper's comments anti-Canadian: http://gettingitright2.blogspot.ca/2006/10/stephen-harpers-comments-are-anti.html

Second, I see that you view the two things quite differently: "anti-Americanism" is a very real issue to be taken seriously; whereas "Anti-Canadianism" is a ridiculous term thrown around viciously and without merit.

Come on.. they are both ridiculous terms thrown around without merit. The only difference is one is used by the right, the other by the left. The goal of both terms is to use patriotism to stifle debate.

The political parties just take their queues from the financial, commerce, and banking sectors just like they always do, and for the most part always have. These elected politicians dont know the first thing about economics or immigration.

Oh come on, you don't actually believe this do you? Sure some individual politicians might be influenced by those evil corporations, but to suggest that all the major political parties are seems a bit ridiculous to me.

[bleeding heart]

Again, we should emphasize the ideologies not the people who classify themselves under those ideologies.

But by "we" you don't mean Pat Condell...whose stated views generated this very thread, and whose views you defend quite vociferously.

I'm not sure why you hold this man whom you respect so much to such lower standards than you hold the rest of us...especially given that his stated views are the thrust of your own argument here.

[bleeding heart]

Maybe it hasn't happened to you (perhaps because you do not have views that some might consider anti-Canadian),

I have suggested that Canada may well have been directly involved in the overthrow of the democratically-elected leader of Haiti--and his subsequent replacement by vicious thugs. I have opined that Canada's foreign policy is often quite distinct from the notions of "peacekeepers," and other benign myths. I deride the very notion that countries are moral agents...they are centres of concentrated power, in which the most benefits accrue to the top-tier--not naturally, but in an engineered fashion.

I think patriotism is an amoral quality, not a moral (or even innately immoral) one...but that the majority of it bespeaks of normal human weaknesses, not strengths.

But I'm not saying the term doesn't exist at all--I'm saying it's unimportant as any sort of "issue." And to suggest that its usage is on par with the promiscuous use of "anti-American" is crazy.

Come on.. they are both ridiculous terms thrown around without merit. The only difference is one is used by the right, the other by the left. The goal of both terms is to use patriotism to stifle debate.

But the point only came up at all because Pat Condell used it, and (in his typical fashion) quite viciously.

Apparently Condell is a right-winger who wishes to stifle debate? (And to clarify: no, I don't see that as the actual case).

I DO think "anti-Americanism" is a rhetorical weapon, and I DO think it's a profoundly stupid term...but I have heard it used by liberals lots of times. The late Christopher Hitchens was quite--shall we say "liberal"--about using it, once his patriotic militarism took over his senses.

Edited October 30, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Michael Hardner]

Can you please define what you mean by unqualified way? I believe I asked for a definition earlier

Unqualified, meaning without qualification. "Can we use the results of the paper to justify changes ?" Which changes ? Qualify your statements, modify them, be specific, and don't be imprecise.

I have provided a list of the non-cultural factors that I think are important

Yes, that you think are important. Thank you. This doesn't mean they are THE important factors.

Now the reason why I challenged you to list other non-cultural, important factors is because: 1. Including more factors in a model more closely approximates reality and can give better results.

Of course, that's elementary. But we're back to error #5.

Since when is providing evidence asking the other person to prove your point?

The sentence makes no sense.

And you won't even look at them ?

Yes, I looked at them but your imprecise language, use of the term "better" which isn't in these studies makes me think you're too sloppy to engage in an in-depth discussion on these topics.

- I feel like many people in this thread are simply not open to the idea of favouring immigrants from some countries over others regardless of the reason.

You should focus on your own reasoning, not your "feelings". We could be open to such a discussion, but not with somebody who decides that people who earn more are "better" for example.

Also, I have never suggested banning muslim immigration. That would be infeasible and it would be somewhat morally wrong to ban people from entering the country based on beliefs (ironically, sharia law has no problem banning immigrants based on beliefs such as polytheists).

Somewhat morally wrong ?

You really like playing with my wording to avoid acknowledging the results and conclusions of these econometrics papers.

How am I "playing with your wording" ? I'm quoting you !

You seem to not understand the importance of words in a sensitive debate such as this, and that's another reason why I can't go further in this debate with you.

the burden of proof lies on the person claiming that 'there exist ideologies that are a bigger threat to the west than islamism' rather than the person claiming that 'there do not exist ideologies that are a bigger threat to the west than islamism'.

But I didn't make that threat - nowhere on this thread. You claimed that Islamism is the biggest threat to Canada - prove it or give up. Your "proof" can't be for me to give you a bigger one, then for you to argue against that.

That's error #5 again - prove your points yourself, I don't want to help you.

You keep claiming that there exist things, but will not name them. Then suggest that i'm demanding that you prove my point for me. Do you not see how backwards this is? If you claim something exists, the least you could do is name it so I can at least argue against why it does not exist.

I don't claim anything. You made a claim, then posted a video with Harper making a different claim, then retracted it (in a reply to Bleeding Heart) Just be mature and admit you were sloppy in your language on this.

You and 'the creationists that demand atheists prove that god doesn't exist' have a lot in common, don't you?

The creationists are like you - they are demanding that the opposition join in and help them with their proof, rather than proving that G_d exists.

You are demanding that I prove that Islam ISN'T the biggest threat to Canada rather than proving on your own that it is the biggest threat.

Is it that unusual to admit when you are wrong or the correct yourself?

I perceive that it is for you. You have made so many errors, and are fighting tooth and nail for the ability to keep making them.

I never claimed the papers discuss culture.

Ok, but you're moving the goalposts on both ends of the field. You're trying to make a point about culture and using papers that don't discuss culture then.

This is what you said in the post just above:

"Canada should change its immigration policy to favour immigrants from 'better' (be it in terms of human capital quality, culture, etc.) source countries"

Agree that Canada's immigration policy should favour some countries over others (even if it's just for human capital quality) and then we can begin to discuss how to measure culture, why culture affects income, and if we should favour immigration from some countries over others based on culture.[/font][/color]

I agree that policy could favour some countries over others. For that matter, I am pretty sure that Canada does this on a defacto basis at least, based on personal experiences.

But you have a long way to go before you're ready to have that discussion. You need to understand the elementary errors you've already made, or we'll go nowhere.

[-1=e^ipi]

But by "we" you don't mean Pat Condell...whose stated views generated this very thread, and whose views you defend quite vociferously.

He never attributed blame of actions to ideologies just because people who may identify under those ideologies perform certain actions. If an atheist man kills another man in a fit of rage for sleeping with his wife, that doesn't mean that the death is the fault of 'atheism'. Why do you insist on trying to do this with 'liberals' and 'conservatives'?

Apparently Condell is a right-winger who wishes to stifle debate? (And to clarify: no, I don't see that as the actual case).

Pat Condell is a right winger now? You claim this despite me linking to videos earlier in this threat where he says he identifies with the 'old' left and not with today's right?

Unqualified, meaning without qualification. "Can we use the results of the paper to justify changes ?" Which changes ? Qualify your statements, modify them, be specific, and don't be imprecise.

Still not sure what you mean by 'without qualification' but whatever.

We can't use the results of the paper to justify changes to Canada's immigration policy?

Again:

"if a country wants to adopt an immigrant selection policy based on a point system such

as that of Canada, then for the same number of years of schooling and of work experience, the number of

points should vary depending on the assessed quality of those years of schooling and work experience. In

particular, more points should be allocated if schooling (especially the highest diploma) and work

experience have been acquired in Canada than if they have been acquired in another country. Another and

possibly more efficient approach, would be to rely less on the number of years of schooling and of work

experience in selecting immigrants, and more on cognitive and professional accreditation tests."

The sentence makes no sense.

You mean it doesn't make grammatical sense? Here, I'll bold the subject and underline the object for you:

"Since when is providing evidence asking the other person to prove your point?"

Yes, I looked at them but your imprecise language, use of the term "better" which isn't in these studies makes me think you're too sloppy to engage in an in-depth discussion on these topics.

Yeah, I'm the one who is too sloppy to engage in an in-depth discussion, because clearly none of my posts in this thread indicate in-depth discussion at all! Certainly the person that will not even look at the papers is the one that is unsloppy enough to have indepth discussion! *sarcasm*

You should focus on your own reasoning, not your "feelings".

That 'feeling' was part of my reasoning as to why I wanted to establish that Canada should prefer immigrants from some countries over immigrants in other countries. That 'feeling' was based on comments made by others in this thread.

We could be open to such a discussion, but not with somebody who decides that people who earn more are "better" for example.

We cannot make value judgements about which immigrants are more valuable to Canada? Do you deny the existence of correlation between income of immigrants and their value to Canada?

Or maybe we should never determine which people are 'better' than other people. In which case we cannot conclude that non-murderers are better than murderers, so we should free all murderers from jail and let them loose in society. *sarcasm*

How am I "playing with your wording" ? I'm quoting you !

You over emphasize which verbs I use even if it's in the context of paraphrasing. You tend to do this to avoid acknowledging my points.

You seem to not understand the importance of words in a sensitive debate such as this

Yeah because clearly I have never emphasize the importance of being clear with our definitions of words such as 'liberal' or 'progressive' in this thread... *sarcasm*

Also, why is this debate 'sensitive'? Are people's feelings being hurt or something?

But I didn't make that threat - nowhere on this thread. You claimed that Islamism is the biggest threat to Canada - prove it or give up. Your "proof" can't be for me to give you a bigger one, then for you to argue against that.

I also retracted/modified that claim earlier in the thread... but that is besides the point.

You are demanding that I prove that Islam ISN'T the biggest threat to Canada rather than proving on your own that it is the biggest threat.

No, I just asked you to name threats that could be considered bigger... which you haven't done.

Ok, but you're moving the goalposts on both ends of the field. You're trying to make a point about culture and using papers that don't discuss culture then.

No, I have never moved my goal posts. That was you misunderstanding me. As I have said many times before, the papers establish that Canada should favour some countries over others when it comes to immigration policy, and also introduce discussion on econometric methodology. Further more, the quotation you have of me clearly suggests that the reason to favour some immigrant groups over others isn't important for establishing that Canada should favour immigrants from some countries over others.

Anyway, do you not see any problems with the following counter arguments and how it relates to your so called 'error 5'?

Claim: 'Mercury is the closest planet to the sun.'

Counter Argument: "No it isn't! There exists a planet between Mercury and the Sun, which I won't name, but you cannot make the claim that Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun until you prove that this planet does not exist. Furthermore, absence of evidence about the existence of such a planet does not prove it doesn't exist."

Claim: 'Michael Hardener has two biological parents.'

Counter Argument: "You cannot make this claim. For all we know, Michael Hardener has three biological parents: his mom, his dad and his mom's sibling (from whom Micheal got his mitochondrial DNA from). Now I won't explain how obtaining mitochondrial DNA from his mom's sibling rather than his mom works (the burden of proof is on the person making the two biological parents claim to prove that it isn't possible), but since Michael, Micheal's mom and his mom's sibling all have identical mitochondrial DNA, we cannot exclude this possibility.

Do you not see how these counter arguments are ridiculous?

I suggest we follow the principle of Occam's razor, because otherwise we will get nowhere and this discussion will not move forward.

If we cannot name or identify any 'threats' that are greater to the west today than Islamism, then Occam's razor suggests that we should conclude that Islamism is the greatest threat to the west today.

I agree that policy could favour some countries over others. For that matter, I am pretty sure that Canada does this on a defacto basis at least, based on personal experiences.

I have not seen evidence that Canada does prefer immigrants from some countries over others (ex. by giving extra points to immigrants from some countries). Do you see anything that suggests Canada favours immigrants from some countries over others in these links below? Because I sure don't.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/apply-factors.asp

http://www.workpermit.com/canada/points_calculator.htm

I do see evidence that suggests that Canada treats all years of schooling the same (like they treat all bachelor's degrees the same, all master's degrees the same, etc.) despite the fact that the conclusions from the uOttawa paper suggest that Canada should not do this.

Edited October 30, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[bleeding heart]

He never attributed blame of actions to ideologies just because people who may identify under those ideologies perform certain actions. If an atheist man kills another man in a fit of rage for sleeping with his wife, that doesn't mean that the death is the fault of 'atheism'. Why do you insist on trying to do this with 'liberals' and 'conservatives'?

This is beside the point I was making: you said we should focus on ideologies, rather than the actual people who might be described as holding to these ideologies.

I pointed out that all this has been in context of Pat Condell's videos...in which he consistently, rancorously, and explicitly condemns and vilifies the people whom he perceives as holding such views.

Which is why I asked why you hold Condell--whom you evidently admire, and with whom you agree--to a lower standard in this discourse. Especially given that his views are what generated this very discussion.

Pat Condell is a right winger now? You claim this despite me linking to videos earlier in this threat where he says he identifies with the 'old' left and not with today's right?

Since you actually quoted what I actually said, this is a baffling response.

I wrote (and you quoted me):

Apparently Condell is a right-winger who wishes to stifle debate? (And to clarify: no, I don't see that as the actual case).

Seriously, we've gotten to the sorry point where you aren't reading my remarks even as you respond to them...unaware even of the very words you quote!

Edited October 30, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Michael Hardner]

"if a country wants to adopt an immigrant selection policy based on a point system such

as that of Canada, then for the same number of years of schooling and of work experience, the number of

points should vary depending on the assessed quality of those years of schooling and work experience. In

particular, more points should be allocated if schooling (especially the highest diploma) and work

experience have been acquired in Canada than if they have been acquired in another country. Another and

possibly more efficient approach, would be to rely less on the number of years of schooling and of work

experience in selecting immigrants, and more on cognitive and professional accreditation tests."

That sounds like it's worth discussing.

Yeah, I'm the one who is too sloppy to engage in an in-depth discussion,

That's what I said, yes. Why don't you retract your use of the term 'better' instead of using sarcasm ?

You over emphasize which verbs I use even if it's in the context of paraphrasing. You tend to do this to avoid acknowledging my points.

'Better' isn't a verb, it's an ADJECTIVE ! Words matter, if they didn't then peanut butter aardvark twelve stethoscope.

Also, why is this debate 'sensitive'? Are people's feelings being hurt or something?

I think perhaps yours are, based on your defensiveness and unwillingness to admit your mistakes. Also, you are the only one to bring your feelings into the discussion.

I also retracted/modified that claim earlier in the thread... but that is besides the point.

You did with BH, but I wasn't reading those replies. Ok then.

No, I just asked you to name threats that could be considered bigger... which you haven't done.

Claim: 'Mercury is the closest planet to the sun.'

Counter Argument: "No it isn't! There exists a planet between Mercury and the Sun, which I won't name, but you cannot make the claim that Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun until you prove that this planet does not exist. Furthermore, absence of evidence about the existence of such a planet does not prove it doesn't exist."

Your analogies don't work - I refuse to make a counter argument.

And I won't do it, nor do I have to.

If we cannot name or identify any 'threats' that are greater to the west today than Islamism, then Occam's razor suggests that we should conclude that Islamism is the greatest threat to the west today.

Uh, no. You can't prove your argument by insisting that I provided counter-proof. This is just debating 101.

"Proof lies with the claimant"

See the forum rules for further reference.

I do see evidence that suggests that Canada treats all years of schooling the same (like they treat all bachelor's degrees the same, all master's degrees the same, etc.) despite the fact that the conclusions from the uOttawa paper suggest that Canada should not do this.

Right, that would an an improvement (if they put a priority on Canadian education.

Here's the points calculator:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/apply-who.asp

Some countries are defacto given priority even without a points system, eg. English/French speaking or countries with more recognized educational institutions.

------------

Let's just turn over all the cards on this one, as they say, and agree with the paper but perhaps not with your sublimated desire to keep out your undesirables.

[dre]

Oh come on, you don't actually believe this do you? Sure some individual politicians might be influenced by those evil corporations, but to suggest that all the major political parties are seems a bit ridiculous to me.

Of COURSE the government is influenced by the business and economic sector on immigration. Besides a small number of refugees economics is the ENTIRE reason we have any immigration at all. We let in immigrants because otherwise our population would be shinking, and the demand for goods and services would shrink along with it.

A report by the RBC called for boosting Canada's immigration rate by 30% to 400,000 per year to ensure continued economic growth. The Chamber of Commerce is pushing for the government to increase immigration to fill a skilled labor defecit as well.

Economics is the sole driver of Canadas immigration policy.

As for critisism of immigration policy in general, its possible there could be some improvements, but immigration is probably the ONLY thing are government does REALLY well.

We have the 3rd highest immigrant employment rate in the entire OECD. We have the best educated immigrants in the OECD. And we have the 7th most efficient labor market in the world which means that do a good job placing people in the right positions for their skillset.

We probably have the best immigration policy in the industrialized world.

Edited October 30, 2013 by dre

[bleeding heart]

We probably have the best immigration policy in the industrialized world.

I wonder if the response I'm predicting will come, and from the usual suspects.

[-1=e^ipi]

'Better' isn't a verb, it's an ADJECTIVE ! Words matter, if they didn't then peanut butter aardvark twelve stethoscope.

To be better acts as a verb, but whatever. I never claimed better was a verb.

Your analogies don't work - I refuse to make a counter argument.

Because there is no counter argument to make. What you are arguing is the same as the counter arguments to Mercury being the closest planet to the sun, or to you having only 2 biological parents.

Point is I invoke Occum's razor to counter all of your 'error 5' claims.

"Proof lies with the claimant"

​Indeed it does. Much like it lies on the claimant that claims Mercury isn't the closest planet to the sun to prove the existence of a planet closer to the sun than Mercury, rather than on the person who claims Mercury is the closest planet to the sun to prove that no planet exists closer to the sun than Mercury.

You did with BH, but I wasn't reading those replies. Ok then.

Maybe you should read all my replies...

I pointed out that all this has been in context of Pat Condell's videos...in which he consistently, rancorously, and explicitly condemns and vilifies the people whom he perceives as holding such views.

He criticizes the people that hold those views, for holding the views. He doesn't people for holding certain views because they do actions that are unrelated to those views, then proceed to blame those views. There is a difference. Also, with respect to the initial video, he doesn't name individuals, but rather talks about the group of people 'progressive racists' and criticizes them for racism.

How do you not understand the difference? If you want to talk about the negative consequences of 'liberalism' and 'conservatism', it isn't sufficient to point at some liberals or conservatives and say 'look at all these bad policies they support'. You have to explain how the support for the bad policies relates to the ideologies.

Since you actually quoted what I actually said, this is a baffling response.

​My apologies, I misread you.

Of COURSE the government is influenced by the business and economic sector on immigration.

Sorry, my comments had a typo. I intended to say 'to suggest that all major political parties are controlled by corporations seems a bit ridiculous to me'.

Besides a small number of refugees economics is the ENTIRE reason we have any immigration at all.

What? Refugees economics? What are you implying here? What does this even mean? Are you suggesting that the majority of immigrants to Canada are refugees? Are you suggesting that refugee immigration is the basis of economic arguments for immigration?

We let in immigrants because otherwise our population would be shinking, and the demand for goods and services would shrink along with it.

Having immigration purely to increase the population isn't really the best economic arguement for immigration. Better arguments would include the fact that Canada's population is aging or the fact that Canada's economic can benefit significantly from economies of scale. Of course counter arguements to immigration could include things like the short term reduction in the physical capital stock per capita.

Anyway, are you implying that I am suggesting that Canada reduce its immigration intake? I'm pretty sure I have never suggested such a thing.

A report by the RBC called for boosting Canada's immigration rate by 30% to 400,000 per year to ensure continued economic growth. The Chamber of Commerce is pushing for the government to increase immigration to fill a skilled labor defecit as well.

I have not suggested a reduction or increase in the amount of immigrants Canada changes per year. I have suggested that Canada changes it's immigrant country-of-origin composition (by making policy changes to the immigrant point system to favour some countries over others).

Economics is the sole driver of Canadas immigration policy.

Well family reunification and refugees play a minor role as well.

Of course political parties like the NDP wish to change Canada's immigration system to make it more focused on family reunification and less on economics. http://petition.ndp.ca/reunite

As for critisism of immigration policy in general, its possible there could be some improvements, but immigration is probably the ONLY thing are government does REALLY well.

The only thing? I would add that Canada does monetary policy really well.

We probably have the best immigration policy in the industrialized world.

I don't know about that. I'd argue that Australia performs better than Canada when it comes to immigration.

Also, you have to remember that it can be difficult to compare countries on immigration policy because the amount of immigrants a country can take in depends on a variety of factors. Australia and Canada can take in large amounts of immigrants per capita because they are open/tolerant societies, have a long history of immigration, are very underpopulated and could greatly benefit from economies of scale, and are quite rich countries.

But yes, Canada does immigration quite well compared to other countries; but that shouldn't detract from making the immigration policy better. The fact that other countries do immigration poorly shouldn't be as important as what immigration policy is optimal for Canada. It is also useful to look at immigration mistakes of other countries (such as UK & France) in order to avoid those problems.

Though I'm tempted to argue against your claim in the same manner that Michael Hardner has been arguing against me: "Canada doesn't have the best immigration policy in the world. An industrialized country with better immigration policy exists, but I will not name it. The burden of proof is now on you to prove that Canada has a better immigration policy than this country that I claim exists but will not name. For all you know, this unnamed country is called 'Magical Fairy Land' and does not exist on any maps because magical fairy dust prevents accurate mapping."

Edited October 30, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[Michael Hardner]

-1=e, I haven't made any claims though - you have.

See the rules, please: posting assertions over and over again without proof is just trolling, and will likely being the attention of mods at some point...

[-1=e^ipi]

-1=e, I haven't made any claims though - you have.

[Michael Hardner Mode] I claim that you have made claims, but I will not name them. Since you claim that you have not made any claims, the burden of proof now relies on you to prove that these claims do not exist. [/Michael Hardner Mode]

See how silly it is when the argument technique is used against you?

Why not just accept the principle of Occam's Razor?

See the rules, please: posting assertions over and over again without proof is just trolling, and will likely being the attention of mods at some point...

Yeah... I'm not posting assertions without evidence.

Though if you wish to get a mod to close this thread for you because you are losing the discussion then that is your choice. Though I would prefer this thread remain open because other posters are still engaged in discussion.

[Michael Hardner]

[Michael Hardner Mode] I claim that you have made claims, but I will not name them. Since you claim that you have not made any claims, the burden of proof now relies on you to prove that these claims do not exist. [/Michael Hardner Mode]

I cannot prove I haven't made claims. To do so, I would have to post all of my responses, which are here on the thread already.

See how silly it is when the argument technique is used against you?

No, it's not silly. It's silly for you to claim that you can just post "Islam is the biggest threat to Canada" and then walk away from the claim insisting that I disprove it.

And talking about it forever is silly, too, so let's quit.

Though if you wish to get a mod to close this thread for you because you are losing the discussion then that is your choice. Though I would prefer this thread remain open because other posters are still engaged in discussion.

The discussion has thankfully petered out in a dusty cloud of your inexactitude.

The thread is about something called 'progressive racism', which no one challenges, but no one cares much about either.

[DogOnPorch]

Seeing one can end up in the Cooler for replying...you might expect a bit of hesitation.

[-1=e^ipi]

No, it's not silly. It's silly for you to claim that you can just post "Islam is the biggest threat to Canada" and then walk away from the claim insisting that I disprove it.

1. I never said that Islam is the biggest threat to Canada.

2. I took back my earlier claim that Islamism is the biggest threat to Canada in 2013. That honour goes to eco-radicalism.

3. You have used your 'error 5' 'argument technique' multiple times in this thread and not just vs my claim with respect to islamism being the biggest threat to the west.

4. I have provided evidence supporting my claim, including statistics on the number terrorist attacks since 2001, links to articles about various terrorist attacks, links to heads of state claiming that islamism is the main threat, quotes from islamic texts explaining why islamism ideology supports these attacks, etc. What do you want exactly? Should I provide a breakdown of the percentage of military expenditures that western countries spend fighting islamism compared to other activities? Should I compare the number of lives lost or the property damage in western countries done by islamism when compared to other sources?

5. Would you agree with the statement: Nazi-ism was the biggest threat to Europe during WW2? If so, how would you go about justifying it?

And talking about it forever is silly, too, so let's quit.

I sense someone wants to back out because they are losing.

[Michael Hardner]

1. I never said that Islam is the biggest threat to Canada.

2. I took back my earlier claim that Islamism is the biggest threat to Canada in 2013. That honour goes to eco-radicalism.

Well done, you're very right. I retract my statement. You said this:

"if islamism isn't the biggest threat to the west today, what is? Look even Stephen Harper agrees that islamism is the biggest threat to Canada."

3. You have used your 'error 5' 'argument technique' multiple times in this thread and not just vs my claim with respect to islamism being the biggest threat to the west.

Yes.

4. I have provided evidence supporting my claim, including statistics on the number terrorist attacks since 2001, links to articles about various terrorist attacks, links to heads of state claiming that islamism is the main threat, quotes from islamic texts explaining why islamism ideology supports these attacks, etc. What do you want exactly?

Did you do this in responses to other posters like BH ?

5. Would you agree with the statement: Nazi-ism was the biggest threat to Europe during WW2? If so, how would you go about justifying it?

Yes, I would agree. I guess I would show the number of human lives lost and resources lost in repelling the aggression from Germany.

I sense someone wants to back out because they are losing.

I actually enjoy learning from others in these debates, (which I guess you would call 'losing') and I get annoyed when I have to school brand new posters who don't engage according to the roles.

[bleeding heart]

He criticizes the people that hold those views, for holding the views.

Of course....but you have repeatedly said that we shouldn't be talking about the PEOPLE who hold views, but the IDEOLOGIES themselves. You wish to cut a break for Condell, but not for me.

I should say, you want to cut a break for yourself, as well: interspersed among your suggestions that I stop talking about people, and remain fixated on ideologies (as "Pat" conceives them, yet! )...you have repeatedly "wondered aloud" if I, personally, might not be a Typical Progressive Relativist, or engaging in Typical Progressive "apologism" for evil.

Surely you can do something about these waves of contradictions.

He doesn't people for holding certain views because they do actions that are unrelated to those views, then proceed to blame those views. There is a difference. Also, with respect to the initial video, he doesn't name individuals, but rather talks about the group of people 'progressive racists' and criticizes them for racism.

How do you not understand the difference? If you want to talk about the negative consequences of 'liberalism' and 'conservatism', it isn't sufficient to point at some liberals or conservatives and say 'look at all these bad policies they support'. You have to explain how the support for the bad policies relates to the ideologies.

But this is moot, because neither you nor Condell have yet made a convincing argument that "Progressive ideology"--and in contradistinction to the "old Left"--has at its core all the horrible things you say it has.

I think you want me to accept the premises of your argument as a given, and then we proceed from there. but since I don't accept the premises, how can this occur?

If your point is that when conservative and liberal governments support terrorism, oppose democracy, intentionally and knowingly fund mass murder....that they are acting in opposition to stated ideology....I'm inclined to agree. But that doesn't matter. It makes zero difference. What matters is what they do.

Similar to the issue with progressive racists, in fact. It isn't, as you seem to be saying, that part of "Progressive ideology" is to engage in racism; it's that racism is NOT part of their ideology, so when they engage in it, it's hypocrisy and a betrayal of stated ideals.

And that was one of my original points: there is no difference in the hypocrisy and betrayal of principles between (what we're naming as shorthand) "conservatives," "liberals,' and "progressives." The fundamental flaw is the same.

​

Edited October 31, 2013 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

.......

Edited October 31, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Argus]

Of COURSE the government is influenced by the business and economic sector on immigration. Besides a small number of refugees economics is the ENTIRE reason we have any immigration at all.

That's the theory. Its interesting, though, that no one has been able to demonstrate any kind of economic improvement or achievements of immigration, nor has the government ever set forth in any sort of paper or study, what those economic goals might be.

In actual fact, our immigration system is driven by politics, by the desire of the party in power to improve its economic position with certain ethnic groups. The economic well-being of Canada is largely irrelevent, or at best, tertiary to political considerations.

We let in immigrants because otherwise our population would be shinking, and the demand for goods and services would shrink along with it.

Who has a better economy, Bangladesh or Finland?

A report by the RBC called for boosting Canada's immigration rate by 30% to 400,000 per year to ensure continued economic growth. The Chamber of Commerce is pushing for the government to increase immigration to fill a skilled labor defecit as well.

So what's good for General Motors is good for everyone? I don't think so. Business likes lots of immigrants because that leads to lots of cheap labour by desperate people. It also likes increased spending. I mean, all those immigrants have to be stuffed somewhere, right?

But as has been amply demonstrated. A larger pie is no better for those at the table when it's accompanied by more people pulling up chairs to eat.

Economics is the sole driver of Canadas immigration policy.

You believe in Santa Clause, don't you...

We have the 3rd highest immigrant employment rate in the entire OECD. We have the best educated immigrants in the OECD.

Some time ago the government increased the demand for post secondary education from immigrants. Oddly, or perhaps not so oddly, this has actually worsened immigrant economic performance over the years. Immigrants are now more likely to be unemployed and on welfare than ever before. The problem is that a university degree is fairly worthless unless it's from a recognized institution, and unless the bearer has superior communication skills. Most immigrants have sub-bar communications skills.

We probably have the best immigration policy in the industrialized world.

Ah, the enthusiasm of sheer, unbridled ignorance.

Tell me, Dre, would you give a damn about immigration if they were all white? Or would your enthusiasm wain and would you decry the whole thing as a waste of money that increases pollution and crowding?

Edited October 31, 2013 by Argus