I never made that fallacy at all. I never said anything even close to that fallacy. You just asserted an unrelated fallacy for no reason.
Let me spoon feed that to you. I draw a parallel between two things, A and B. You pick a characteristic c of A and claim B does have exactly c, therefore the parallel is flawed.You have not shown that c is critical for the parallel between A and B, and when I point this out, you instead repeat that B does not have c.My example with the jackets would have made this clear to a thinking individual. I am starting to suspect you are not one.
You are not explaining at all. I do understand logic well enough. Obviously the limited character terms makes complete explanations difficult though.Your example of jackets talking about who you can learn from had zero to do with our conversation though.
Therefore the first comment I had on all this stuff. We have no proof that they will want to get paid. If they get by on welfare, they may choose to stick with itThey may choose to steal instead of working. They may want to work but not be able to do anything useful.
I suppose you know all about the literature on this? You have read it all and made an overview of it all have you? I was told differently.Also, the immigration on a massive scale that is happening in Europe today, it is an experiment that is hard to predict the outcome of. One claim is that they will not integrate wellA few immigrants have to bend to the will of the people living in a country. When they become many, they will set their own demands. Muslims for example have their own cultureThe Koran specifically sets muslim men on top, then muslim women, then the whites. Those who follow the koran have no intention of caring for us when we get old
Blinders? This just gets dumber and dumber. You seem to be totally unaware (blinders?) of what has happened in Sweden, France, Germany, Britain etc. with Muslim gangs.And remember, you want more immigration, that will increase the problem.
You were talking in general terms in the topic. Now you have chanced your stance again. I understand that you don't want to watch that, you might learn something about the truthEasier to claim that others have blinds and go on repeating your own stuff, never really listening to what others say. Do you even understand what having "blinds" involves?Oh, and of course stuff that does not happen in North America is irrelevant, nothing to learn from other places, cause parallels do not exist in your world
So here you have a total logical breakdown again. You were saying you refused to watch a movie that was not about North America. Obviously my comment is about that.If you don't think America is the only topic that matters, your "reason" for not watching the movie falls away. Maybe you should watch it then.
Wrong again. My idea that you should allow bums into your living area is directly based on the parallel that you have so much trouble with. It is quite simple from a logical povDo you want me to explain it to you? It is trivial, but I can explain it if you can't manage.
You think western democracies "must" accept immigrants. They come into our "home" (homeland), and the question then arises, what if they act like bums? Since you do not see the problemI use the parallel of normal homes, and ask if you accept bums into your living area. Do you get it now?
The only real political pressure to accept lots of refugees that I know about to is on western democracies. I cannot talk for other countries, so I talked about what I knew.I do not try to make it about western countries, but when I make a statement that I am not sure goes for all countries, I naturally limit the list.
First, I don't accept your assertion that mass immigration is not a real thing. You should show how it is not. Second, the large wave of immigrants that came to Europe recently...it was sold to us as refugees, but later it has been shown that the majority was not. Many go back to their home countries on vacation for example. Those who were refugees from long ago, they mostly stay in the European countries even when wars stop in their home countries. They have not plans to go back. Very different from majority of WWI/II refugeesAlso, you really should read up on demographics for the region. Some estimates give muslim majority in about half a century. If you look at what trouble they already have with distinctminorities, this is a very serious thing. Again you should watch the movie I linked to. It shows some of the things you can expect with radical Islam in a western country
Enough people to become majority in a few decades is not mass immigration? You really think this? These are projections for current immigration policy for several western countries.From what you have said so far it seems you want a even more liberal policy, where these countries would be flooded with immigrants in maybe one decade, until they broke downAlready there are quite some signs of what's to come. Sharia courts for example are in place today in Britain(not above British law, but still operating as if being legal institutions)Or you could look to South Africa, where white farmers now are being killed for being white, even a politician singing from stage stuff that strongly suggests killing of whites.
OK. You keep being wrong, which not so bad, but then you are obnoxious about it, which is not fine. I noticed you backed off when I asked you to give me your best argument properly.Instead you spend your time being obnoxious
No, as with this very comment, you just repeat. You do not say WHY it does not work. You just repeat the assertion.And you should go back and count your own repetitions and be ashamed of yourself for making them. It is very impolite to do this when it has been made clear that it is not helpful.
Oh, give me a break. I have been very clear that I do not want you to repeat. What I ask you to do is fill the gaping hole in your logic, WITHOUT repeating the faulty logicActually, answer me this. Do I want you to repeat? Have you understood that I want you not to repeat?
You have now started filling the previous hole that I talked about. You have even started to change your stance by now to something completely different from what it was in the startAll that remains now is to start pretending that this is what you said the whole time. We shall see if you are sufficiently dishonest to go there
Wrong. You left a gaping hole in your argument over and over. As I explained, you chose a c, but you did not prove that the lack of c in B necessarily proved the parallel was faultyAlso, the repetition is still impolite.
They all are attempts to confuse the issue. You can let random people into your country or into your family. They may become "integrated" or not. You have no way of telling.Still, all those "aspects" are wrong. You can explain them, and I can pick apart your attempts. It should be easy enough.They may help your economy or they may break it. They may help you when you get old, or they may rob you blind. You just don't know. You act as if there is certainty they will be good
I refuse to make your argument for you and then refute. Is it too much to ask to make a real case for how these "aspects" play out in real life to a difference before I refute?If I don't get you to make the argument first, you will change your stance after the fact and pretend that the new stance was your stance all along, as you have shown willing to do