Iranian born man attacks 10 in Germany!

kupus

listermint wrote: »

No, just factual.

You'll find Irish people enjoy facts.

Not fiction.

Doesn't fly here , we can smell spoofers

Ahem *cough Bertie /cough

Captain Obvious

Omackeral wrote: »

Your answer is "I'm not answering that". Then you go with wishy washy "moral" norms as a plus? Like what? You round off by saying they'll repopulate the place, despite not really giving any plusses at all.

No, I simply said there's no point complaining about people not answering a heavily loaded question.


Then I specifically said I'll avoid moral and cultural things because I knew someone like yourself would be triggered by them.


Then I pointed to two articles which explain my view better than I could. hard to tell what you mean when you say plus if you don't consider avoiding labour shortages and ageing populations a plus.

Aidan Blue Mink wrote: »

Null point. Ireland already has one of the highest youth population and highest birth rates in the EU.

How does it compare to the countries the immigrants are coming from?

Aidan Blue Mink wrote: »

Automation will take upto 50% of ALL current jobs by 2030. The most at risk after this point, are all those that are not classed as 'highly skilled'.

It may do.

Aidan Blue Mink wrote: »

These new arrivals will likely only add to the welfare state (unless they're programmers, brain surgens or scientists etc).

Pure speculation.

Aidan Blue Mink wrote: »

The only long-term labour shortages (outside of short-term seasonal demands) will be for people 'very highly qualified', 'highly experienced' and/or with 'exceptional skills', not to mention language fluency.

Also speculation.

Aidan Blue Mink wrote: »

Then once tax harmonisation occurs, standby to watch 100,000's of jobs dissapear almost overnight.

More speculation.

4068ac1elhodqr

(Earlier quote by Accumulator): Null point. Ireland already has one of the highest youth population and highest birth rates in the EU.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

How does it compare to the countries the immigrants are coming from?

Highly irrelevant question. Japan has 'negative' population growth, maybe they’ll these refugees much more than Europe’s 500,000m population, of which to source workers from.

//

(Earlier quote by Accumulator): Automation will take upto 50% of ALL current jobs by 2030. The most at risk after this point, are all those that are not classed as 'highly skilled'.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It may do.

It MOST LIKELY will. (and that’s the experts view), not some random speculative boards poster.

//

(Earlier quote by Accumulator): These new arrivals will likely only add to the welfare state (unless they're programmers, brain surgeons or scientists etc).

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Pure speculation.

Higher speculation that you believe they be ‘highly’ skilled/experienced/educated.

You saying it’s more likely they’re all higher level degree holders with many years experience, and a good level of fluency? - That are currently crossing the Med and elsewhere without working permits or even any ID/qualification papers to show?

Sounds like speculation, (or wishful thinking, on your part).

//

(Earlier quote by Accumulator): The only long-term labour shortages (outside of short-term seasonal demands) will be for people 'very highly qualified', 'highly experienced' and/or with 'exceptional skills', not to mention language fluency.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Also speculation.

Ignorance.

Have you even read the PWC report on the affects of Automation and the 4th Industrial Revolution on jobs. Even Medium level (ord. degree) educated are at (44%c) severe risk of job loss within 12yrs (2030).

Maybe get oneself educated on this matter, before calling out on ‘skills shortages for the unskilled’?

//

(Earlier quote by Accumulator): Then once tax harmonisation occurs, standby to watch 100,000's of jobs dissapear almost overnight.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

More speculation.

More ‘obvious’ Ignorance.

Do you believe this isn’t the wishes of the EU masters?
Do you believe this won’t happen within the next decade?
Do you believe the rest of the EU27 have a favourable view of the unfair 12.5% CT here?
Do you believe the EU aren’t talking about ex-powers to initiate this policy?
Do you believe harmonisation won’t ever occur across the EU?
Do you believe MN's will remain in an 22% Island off a non-EU island to sell good and services to the EU, when they move to Munich or somewhere handy. Then there's the UK which will become a tax-haven after 2020 (17%CT then and dropping).

Captain Obvious

Aidan Blue Mink wrote: »

Highly irrelevant question. Japan has 'negative' population growth, maybe they’ll these refugees much more than Europe’s 500,000m population, of which to source workers from.

They may have to. Japan's population is shrinking and getting older. The prime minister has highlighted it as a priority.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/02/26/its-official-japans-population-is-drastically-shrinking/?utm_term=.4762989088d3

Aidan Blue Mink wrote: »

It MOST LIKELY will. (and that’s the experts view), not some random speculative boards poster.

It's only your view without something to back it up.

Aidan Blue Mink wrote: »

Higher speculation that you believe they be ‘highly’ skilled/experienced/educated.

You saying it’s more likely they’re all higher level degree holders with many years experience, and a good level of fluency? - That are currently crossing the Med and elsewhere without working permits or even any ID/qualification papers to show?

Sounds like speculation, (or wishful thinking, on your part).

Ah, a strawman.

Aidan Blue Mink wrote: »

Ignorance.

Have you even read the PWC report on the affects of Automation and the 4th Industrial Revolution on jobs. Even Medium level (ord. degree) educated are at (44%c) severe risk of job loss within 12yrs (2030).

Maybe get oneself educated on this matter, before calling out on ‘skills shortages for the unskilled’?

Well it's the first time you mentioned them and you haven't linked it or referred to anything specific passage. I've had a quick read over them. The projections seem to be based on policies and government investment remaining as is. But they also mention ways to help avert these issues by changing them. Although I csan't find mention of immigration or immigrants in either of those documents.

Aidan Blue Mink wrote: »

More ‘obvious’ Ignorance.

Do you believe this isn’t the wishes of the EU masters?
Do you believe this won’t happen within the next decade?
Do you believe the rest of the EU27 have a favourable view of the unfair 12.5% CT here?
Do you believe the EU aren’t talking about ex-powers to initiate this policy?
Do you believe harmonisation won’t ever occur across the EU?
Do you believe MN's will remain in an 22% Island off a non-EU island to sell good and services to the EU, when they move to Munich or somewhere handy. Then there's the UK which will become a tax-haven after 2020 (17%CT then and dropping).

You appear to have cross posted from your conspiracy blog. Incidentally, who are our "EU masters"?

Omackeral

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Then I specifically said I'll avoid moral and cultural things because I knew someone like yourself would be triggered by them.

Go on, try me. Tell me some of them. I never said there wasn't any. Would love to know. If you can list away, go ahead. See, you take a question being asked as an affront to you for some reason and also you manage to work in the word "triggered" when all I did was ask a question. Assume away all you want but if you're asked a question, it's really not that tough to answer if you've got the answers to give.

4068ac1elhodqr

Captain Obvious wrote: »

They may have to. Japan's population is shrinking and getting older. The prime minister has highlighted it as a priority.

Indeed, and more so than the EU's 1/2bn workforce. But the real question is will japan want or need unskilled refugees, or do they seek highly skilled workers (aka 'skilled migration'), that's the real question.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It's only your view without something to back it up.

It's the experts view, it's only your view it without some to back it up.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Ah, a strawman..

Use this phrase when your're dumbfounded.
Or even better resort to 'conspiracy' (see below).

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Well it's the first time you mentioned them and you haven't linked it or referred to anything specific passage. I've had a quick read over them. The projections seem to be based on policies and government investment remaining as is. But they also mention ways to help avert these issues by changing them. Although I csan't find mention of immigration or immigrants in either of those documents.

This was mentioned to you before in another thread, but you failed to do your homework and read any of it, naughty boy.

Read it again: https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/economics-policy/insights/the-impact-of-automation-on-jobs.html

There are plenty of other sources, this is just one of many economic insights.

It's about workers and risk to their jobs, (even skilled workers are at risk). Immigration is irrelvant but point is we'll only need the 'skilled migrants'. Strangely enough this category can thankfully arrive and work here (legally) via skilled migration routes. Imagine that!

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You appear to have cross posted from your conspiracy blog. Incidentally, who are our "EU masters"?

You appear not to understand we're part of the EU, we now abide by many of their laws, customs and policies. Do you believe it's still the 1960's? Conspiracy theories this way... >

A bigger threat to Ireland than Brexit
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/eu-tax-plan-is-a-bigger-threat-to-ireland-than-brexit-1.3220094

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/exclusive-audio-my-european-tax-plans-are-not-antiirish-insists-juncker-36137506.html

Captain Obvious

Omackeral wrote: »

Go on, try me. Tell me some of them. I never said there wasn't any. Would love to know. If you can list away, go ahead. See, you take a question being asked as an affront to you for some reason and also you manage to work in the word "triggered" when all I did was ask a question. Assume away all you want but if you're asked a question, it's really not that tough to answer if you've got the answers to give.

This was your comment.

Then you go with wishy washy "moral" norms as a plus? Like what?

Didn't sound like you were too interested in hearing any and I don't think I'll be wasting my time on someone whose made up their mind to dismiss the entire concept before they ask a question about it.

_Kaiser_

Omackeral wrote: »

Go on, try me. Tell me some of them. I never said there wasn't any. Would love to know. If you can list away, go ahead. See, you take a question being asked as an affront to you for some reason and also you manage to work in the word "triggered" when all I did was ask a question. Assume away all you want but if you're asked a question, it's really not that tough to answer if you've got the answers to give.

I think that's the issue with these crusaders... not just on this topic - you see the same in any "controversial" thread.

Everything is taken personally, everything is an attack, "you're either with us or against us", with a good dose of buzzwords like "triggered", "phobic", "-ist", "far-right", "straw-man", "fake news" (thank you Donald Trump for inflicting THAT one on us!), and other such nonsense thrown in alongside some attempts at emotional blackmail, or to get the whole discussion shut down.

It's like arguing with children who've never been told "no" or learned that you don't always get what you want, and that not everyone will agree with you.

All to try and defect from the point that they HAVE no real argument that doesn't rely solely on personal opinions, the consensus of their social media followings, or which can't stand even basic questioning without the responses I've identified above being resorted to.

It cheapens what are subjects which DO warrant discussion, and it completely devalues any legitimate points they MAY have.

Omackeral

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Didn't sound like you were too interested in hearing any and I don't think I'll be wasting my time on someone whose made up their mind to dismiss the entire concept before they ask a question about it.

Incorrect. Wishy washy referred to your vague description. So again, go ahead. All ears.

Captain Obvious

Aidan Blue Mink wrote: »

Indeed, and more so than the EU's 1/2bn workforce. But the real question is will japan want or need unskilled refugees, or do they seek highly skilled workers (aka 'skilled migration'), that's the real question.

Where do you think all these skilled workers are going to come from exactly?

Aidan Blue Mink wrote: »

It's the experts view, it's only your view it without some to back it up.

I gave my opinion. You said the experts say otherwise. Up to you to provide your source.

Aidan Blue Mink wrote: »

Use this phrase when your're dumbfounded.
Or even better resort to 'conspiracy' (see below).

Your comment was the very definition of a straw man. I'll break it down for you. First you made attributed a position to me I did not take.

Higher speculation that you believe they be ‘highly’ skilled/experienced/educated.

You saying it’s more likely they’re all higher level degree holders with many years experience, and a good level of fluency? -

Then you give a counter point.

That are currently crossing the Med and elsewhere without working permits or even any ID/qualification papers to show?

Then you challenge my view which is really not my view.

Sounds like speculation, (or wishful thinking, on your part).

Aidan Blue Mink wrote: »

This was mentioned to you before in another thread, but you failed to do your homework and read any of it, naughty boy.

Read it again: https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/economics-policy/insights/the-impact-of-automation-on-jobs.html

There are plenty of other sources, this is just one of many economic insights.

It's about workers and risk to their jobs, (even skilled workers are at risk). Immigration is irrelvant but point is we'll only need the 'skilled migrants'. Strangely enough this category can thankfully arrive and work here (legally) via skilled migration routes. Imagine that!

But you haven't shown why the proposals suggested to defer the effect on the labour market won't also work with immigrants in the equation.

Aidan Blue Mink wrote: »

You appear not to understand we're part of the EU, we now abide by many of their laws, customs and policies. Do you believe it's still the 1960's? Conspiracy theories this way... >

A bigger threat to Ireland than Brexit
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/eu-tax-plan-is-a-bigger-threat-to-ireland-than-brexit-1.3220094

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/exclusive-audio-my-european-tax-plans-are-not-antiirish-insists-juncker-36137506.html

You appear not to understand how the EU works.

Omackeral

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I think that's the issue with these crusaders... not just on this topic - you see the same in any "controversial" thread.

Everything is taken personally, everything is an attack, "you're either with us or against us", with a good dose of buzzwords like "triggered", "phobic", "-ist", "far-right", "straw-man", "fake news" (thank you Donald Trump for inflicting THAT one on us!), and other such nonsense thrown in alongside some attempts at emotional blackmail, or to get the whole discussion shut down.

It's like arguing with children who've never been told "no" or learned that you don't always get what you want, and that not everyone will agree with you.

All to try and defect from the point that they HAVE no real argument that doesn't rely solely on personal opinions, the consensus of their social media followings, or which can't stand even basic questioning without the responses I've identified above being resorted to.

It cheapens what are subjects which DO warrant discussion, and it completely devalues any legitimate points they MAY have.

All I've literally done is ask for his opinion and he seems to have taken it very personally. Using words like "triggered" and telling me that I've made up my mind. Like I'm asking you for examples because I'd like to know and you're telling me my mind is made up? Ah it's just ridiculous.

_Kaiser_

Omackeral wrote: »

All I've literally done is ask for his opinion and he seems to have taken it very personally. Using words like "triggered" and telling me that I've made up my mind. Like I'm asking you for examples because I'd like to know and you're telling me my mind is made up? Ah it's just ridiculous.

There's an old saying that I'm gonna adapt here..

"Never argue with a crusader... they drag you down to their level and then cry foul when you call them on their nonsense!"

Captain Obvious

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I think that's the issue with these crusaders... not just on this topic - you see the same in any "controversial" thread.

Everything is taken personally, everything is an attack, "you're either with us or against us", with a good dose of buzzwords like "triggered", "phobic", "-ist", "far-right", "straw-man", "fake news" (thank you Donald Trump for inflicting THAT one on us!), and other such nonsense thrown in alongside some attempts at emotional blackmail, or to get the whole discussion shut down.

It's like arguing with children who've never been told "no" or learned that you don't always get what you want, and that not everyone will agree with you.

All to try and defect from the point that they HAVE no real argument that doesn't rely solely on personal opinions, the consensus of their social media followings, or which can't stand even basic questioning without the responses I've identified above being resorted to.

It cheapens what are subjects which DO warrant discussion, and it completely devalues any legitimate points they MAY have.

You did it again. You use a phrase in a pejorative fashion to describe people (crusaders) then you lament their uncivil nature and how they take things personally. You probably don't even know you do it.

_Kaiser_

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You did it again. You use a phrase in a pejorative fashion to describe people (crusaders) then you lament their uncivil nature and how they take things personally. You probably don't even know you do it.

I'm highlighting the point that people like yourself seem to be incapable of making an argument without relying solely on emotive nonsense, personal opinions, or the consensus of right-minded social media.

When your points are disputed, or even just questioned you resort to tactics such as I've highlighted in the post you quoted - all to deflect from the point that you CAN'T defend/back-up your own argument.

It's extremely transparent and fooling no-one.

Giraffe Box

The Backwards Man wrote: »

*der

Feminine dativ

I'm literally a grammar nazi

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Capital N.

Hmmm

https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-n

4068ac1elhodqr

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Where do you think all these skilled workers are going to come from exactly?

But you haven't shown why the proposals suggested to defer the effect on the labour market won't also work with immigrants in the equation.

You appear not to understand how the EU works.

Not only do you not understand basic economics, the EU, or the rise of automation (and the impact on jobs, even skilled workers) you haven't even read the article you requested (twice). Then revert to lazy 'strawman and conspiracy' in the same reponse when becoming dumbfounded.

Pointless really arguing with obvious empty heads. Tally ho.

Captain Obvious

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I'm highlighting the point that people like yourself seem to be incapable of making an argument without relying solely on emotive nonsense, personal opinions, or the consensus of right-minded social media.

When your points are disputed, or even just questioned you resort to tactics such as I've highlighted in the post you quoted - all to deflect from the point that you CAN'T defend/back-up your own argument.

It's extremely transparent and fooling no-one.

Right, so you are attacking me personally and then wondering why I take things personally. Baffling.



And I think you'll find that I've made an effort to support my views with links to support them. But there are, of course, occasions when I cannot do so because it's simply a difference of views. And when someone suggests something that causes suffering in the name of the greater good I do use emotive language because they are emotive issues and to be honest, there's no real link I can post to show how such a position lacks empathy because it's just something I consider basic humanity.

Captain Obvious

Aidan Blue Mink wrote: »

Not only do you not understand basic economics, the EU, or the rise of automation (and the impact on jobs, even skilled workers) you haven't even read the article you requested (twice). Then revert to lazy 'strawman and conspiracy' in the same reponse when becoming dumbfounded.

Pointless really arguing with obvious empty heads. Tally ho.

I didn't read the article, I read the paper it based it's findings on. Did you?

Nermal

Captain Obvious wrote: »

They may have to. Japan's population is shrinking and getting older. The prime minister has highlighted it as a priority.

They will manage their population decline without mass immigration, because they value the character of their society and don't want to radically change it. There are more important things than top-line GDP growth.

SnakePlissken

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

These there threads serve a purpose: culling the people incapable of arguing a point with logic when they start screaming personal insults and get banned.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I knew someone like yourself would be triggered by them.
.

There appears to be the one familiar poster resorting yet again to personal snipes, pathethic.

Sand

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I guess the biggest issue for Europe going forward is the ageing population. Population numbers will stagnate and the median ages will continuously rise. The immigrants tend to come from countries with much lower median ages. here's a couple of articles that I found interesting.

So instead of addressing the causes of why Europeans are not having children, the policy is to import non-Europeans to have children instead. Pursued to its logical end, that means Europeans increasingly surrender their countries to non-European migrants.

How does that help Europeans again?

But I guess the real test of immigration will be seen with Brexit. With major labour shortages predicted in some industries and an increasingly ageing native population it will be interesting to see how they deal with it without immigrants.

A mixture of automation, addressing the causes of low birth rates, better training for the young and higher pay for workers?

It has to be a better outcome than a 'homegrown' Islamic insurgency and/or Balkan ethnic civil war or some sort of Bladerunner style stagnation.

Captain Obvious

SnakePlissken wrote: »

There appears to be the one familiar poster resorting yet again to personal snipes, pathethic.

Your first and only contribution to this thread is a personal attack and insult.

Omackeral

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Your first and only contribution to this thread is a personal attack and insult.

Here you had no bother going at me saying "people like you get triggered" when all I did was ask you a question. A question you decided to side step, I might add, based on personal assumptions you were making about me inaccurately. So it's a bit rich taking the high ground here.

SnakePlissken

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Your first and only contribution to this thread is a personal attack and insult.

Highlighting your known propensity for attacking those with differing opinions rather than engaging in discussion is not a personal attack it's a statement of fact.

Captain Obvious

Omackeral wrote: »

Here you had no bother going at me saying "people like you get triggered" when all I did was ask you a question. A question you decided to side step, I might add, based on personal assumptions you were making about me inaccurately. So it's a bit rich taking the high ground here.

Not taking any high ground, just pointing out his hypocrisy. I'm also satisfied I interpreted your position correctly, both what you meant and how you responded.

Captain Obvious

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Highlighting your known propensity for attacking those with differing opinions rather than engaging in discussion is not a personal attack it's a statement of fact.

I disagree.

Omackeral

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Not taking any high ground, just pointing out his hypocrisy. I'm also satisfied I interpreted your position correctly, both what you meant and how you responded.

How arrogant you are. You didn't, not at all. I'm open to debate and discussion. I've told you more than once what was meant by the term "wishy-washy" and I've also asked you three times since that to go right ahead with your answers and examples directly and that I was all ears. You have shown that you absolutely lack the courage, the courtesy or both to simply do just that.

I don't find you credible at all based on our interaction today. You just slung mud and wouldn't or couldn't engage directly. Something you have no bother accusing others of on the regular. Farcical stuff from you tbh and no real point in trying to engage further. Pathetic showing.

SnakePlissken

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I disagree.

Well I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Well I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Talk to Joe.

(Although you seem to have a habit of thanking your own posts, so not sure Joe will take you seriously....)

Captain Obvious

Omackeral wrote: »

How arrogant you are. You didn't, not at all. I'm open to debate and discussion. I've told you more than once what was meant by the term "wishy-washy" and I've also asked you three times since that to go right ahead with your answers and examples directly and that I was all ears. You have shown that you absolutely lack the courage, the courtesy or both to simply do just that.

I don't find you credible at all based on our interaction today. You just slung mud and wouldn't or couldn't engage directly. Something you have no bother accusing others of on the regular. Farcical stuff from you tbh and no real point in trying to engage further. Pathetic showing.

I'm satisfied I interpreted it correctly, both the claim you were triggered by it, as proven by you responding directly to it and that you were using the term wishy washy to refer to cultural and moral issues in general because I have spoken of them before in a thread you were active in while you were active in it. I spoke of the benefits of exposing immigrants to our way of life and I spoke of the benefits of exposing the more xenophobic natives types to other cultures too. I spoke of the moral value of saving people who were likely going to drown otherwise and how immoral it is to let them drown to send a message to smugglers. I've often spoke of the need to judge ourselves by a higher standard than the countries and cultures the immigrants are coming from. You've been active in all the immigrant and Muslim threads so it is not within my capacity to believe you missed all of my comments in relation to the cultural and moral benefits. So when you refer to them as "wishy washy" I am going to believe you are using it to refer to the issues themselves instead of my description of them.


I don't particularly care if you find me credible. I'm not trying to sell you something or flip your world views. I doubt they are changeable by words alone. I'm just going to keep pointing out when I think you are wrong and hope the more reasonable people will be convinced by it.

SnakePlissken

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

(Although you seem to have a habit of thanking your own posts, so not sure Joe will take you seriously....)

Nope, different poster, similar name, regardless, I can't take anyone seriously who might reply with imbecilic garbage such as "Talk to Joe"

Skylinehead

Get this back on topic, next post about posters gets a ban.

Omackeral

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I'm satisfied I interpreted it correctly

Well you didn't so you're wrong. Interpret whatever you want to suit your own smug narrative. You are incorrect.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

SnakePlissken wrote: »

I can't take anyone seriously who might reply with imbecilic garbage such as "Talk to Joe"

Yeah I know - in was being sarcastic

Omackeral

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I don't particularly care if you find me credible. I'm not trying to sell you something or flip your world views. I doubt they are changeable by words alone. I'm just going to keep pointing out when I think you are wrong and hope the more reasonable people will be convinced by it.

What am I wrong on?! You just fill in the blanks yourself. For example, where have I ever said anything about not welcoming people from overseas? Where have I said anything unreasonable? Feel free to quote me. I'm very reasonable. I don't paint swathes of people with one brush. If a person says all Muslims are X or all Travellers are Y, you'll find me saying going against that. I've done as much on this site. I try to deal in shades of grey with most issues.

I categorically state right now I've fcuk all against Muslim people. Religion as a concept,and as a means of lawmaking and policy though, yeah I've an issue with that and I don't hide it. Not the same as hating people whatsoever. I think all religion is pox to be honest.

So there you have it. Not much to interpret there. All laid out for ya.