2 ms·
Well I certainly object to the destruction of America’s culture too, but the construction of geofft’s argument is that categorically he could only think of one
by SamReidHughes 8y ago
Well I certainly object to the destruction of America’s culture too, but the construction of geofft’s argument is that categorically he could only think of one possible objection to immigration.
And it’s not an irrational fear. It’s a very obvious fact that America with wide open borders would be a worse place for existing Americans to live, just look at the average country and ask if Americans would like to live there, and why not.
- fzeroracer 8y agoI don't believe it's a very obvious fact at all, considering America has had very lax borders in the past and I would not describe it as being a far worse place to live. If you're going to describe something as an obvious fact, how about you back up your obvious fact with citations or data? Otherwise then yes, it would be an irrational fear. And I would imagine the converse is true: If you asked anyone in another first world country if they would like to live in America, I would bet you'd see the results end up rather negative. Especially after the past few years of nonsense we've exhibited to the rest of the world.
- SamReidHughes 8y agoSimply by increasing population, traffic, and pollution it would make the country worse off. You don’t need studies and citations to figure this out, you need to hold in your head a model of reality. You need above average people, who give more than they take, in order to drive the quality of the country upward.
- fzeroracer 8y agoLet's take your argument to the extreme then: If increasing population -> more traffic -> more pollution, then the obvious thing should be to reduce the birth rate in America which is a far more pressing issue than immigration if we're talking pure population growth. Not only that but by your own argument since we need 'above average people' who 'give more than they take', the end result should be forcing people out of rural areas (the dense metropolitan areas tend to be more economically powerful) while also ensuring they can't procreate. What I'm getting at is essentially using population growth as an excuse for restricting immigration is itself an excuse, because there are many ways in which the issues of population growth are stymied and more effective at doing so. And yes, I do want studies and citations. You're essentially begging the question in lieu of actually providing evidence for your own claims. I want you to give me explicit citations for your claims and your 'model of reality', because you're assuming that your model of reality is correct without any factual basis.
- SamReidHughes 8y agoSorry, pal, you don't get to dictate the terms of this conversation.
- fzeroracer 8y agoThen you're admitting that you're not here to actually debate in any sort of rational manner. If you make a claim and can't substantiate your claim when called out on it, then your claim has no rational or factual basis. At which point your entire argument falls apart, especially when you call something a 'very obvious fact'.
- SamReidHughes 8y agoYou're welcome to post a citation showing that increased immigration would reduce traffic and pollution. Otherwise I'm not gonna bother.
- fzeroracer 8y agoIt's obvious now that you're not actually willing to properly argue on your side of the debate. The argumentative burden of proof is on the person making the claims, not the one disputing it. The fact that you're being so flippant about your claims does not do your argument justice. Not only that, but now you're attempting to twist the argument into something that it wasn't in the first place. Even if we did decrease immigration, that wouldn't fix the issues of traffic and pollution in America because those are born out of poor city planning combined with lax industrial standards. Unless you want to somehow argue that immigrants contribute more to pollution than corporations doing things like say, flaring in West Texas. If you can't support your claims with evidence when called out on it, then you shouldn't make such bold claims period.
- SamReidHughes 8y agoMore people = more traffic is not a bold claim. That's traffic engineering 101.
- geofft 8y ago> Simply by increasing population, traffic, and pollution it would make the country worse off. This doesn't at all seem obviously true to me. It rather seems obviously false: I find big cities more pleasant to live in than small towns, even though they have more of all three. More population seems like an inherent virtue to me. More traffic gets turned into more efficient traffic via public transit, or building denser and more walkable cities, or whatever, which I find more enjoyable than cars. More pollution is a side effect but a solvable one. If your argument is the model of reality in your head, then you need to admit that the model of reality in lots of other peoples' heads is very different, and there's no reason that your model should win (unless you're claiming that your political opinions matter more than others'?).
- SamReidHughes 8y agoI think waiting in traffic and being forced to use alternate means of transportation is a net negative. There are already Big Cities in this country for anybody that enjoys the city-slicker lifestyle, and increasing total population won't make the world better for those people.
- geofft 8y ago> the construction of geofft’s argument is that categorically he could only think of one possible objection to immigration. This is untrue. I said the primary objection. Of course there will be a lot of other objections.
- SamReidHughes 8y agoOkay, that's correct. And I disagree(d) with what the primary objection is and would be. Maybe not your objection, but most people's, in every country.