4 ms·

Citation that a "significant fraction" of those who immigrated were facing certain death? Also, implicit in your post seems to be an assertion that the moral r

Citation that a "significant fraction" of those who immigrated were facing certain death? Also, implicit in your post seems to be an assertion that the moral responsibility for their deaths would fall on us rather than the people causing the deadly circumstances in their home countries, and that we are thus we are obligated to help in this specific way. There are a lot of problems with this argument.

randomdata 2y ago
> Citation that a "significant fraction" of those who immigrated were facing certain death? "A significant fraction of those people would be dead if they didn't immigrate." -- bryanlarsen, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40598367 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40598367 > Also, implicit in your post seems to be an assertion that the moral responsibility for their deaths would fall on us There is no such assertion. Any more logical fallacies up your sleeve before we move on?
- naasking 2y ago
  Cute, now maybe look up the definition of "citation" which requires a source for the claim.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    I did cite the source, at least as the dictionary defines those terms. You're going to have to fill us in with your own personal, non-standard definition that you are using, I guess.
    - naasking 2y ago
      Ah, so you're being deliberately obtuse. Not interested.
      - randomdata 2y ago
        I suppose asking for a citation could be considered deliberately obtuse. What is even the point of talking to someone else by proxy? If you really have an interest in what someone else had to say, why not go talk to them directly? If you want to have a discussion with the actors in front of you, why not talk to them instead? Oh, right, you're not interested. But then why be here at all?
bryanlarsen 2y ago
Canada has admitted over one million refugees since 1980. Refugees are admitted under 3 criteria: - danger of torture - risk of life - risk of cruel and unusual punishment
- naasking 2y ago
  The post you replied to showed a graph of almost 1.2 million migrants in 2023 alone, a roughly 5x jump from historical norms of 10+ years ago. You then said "a significant fraction of those people" would be dead otherwise, but now you're saying we've admitted 1 million refugees since 1980. 1 million since 1980 seems totally reasonable but I just can't square up that number with what you said in response to the original graph.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    5% is a significant fraction, especially when "death" is the 5%.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - naasking 2y ago
      I understand what you're saying, but I think that descriptor is very misleading in this context. The original post was discussing a very large uptick in absolute numbers and the subsequent increased demand on resources that would entail. Your response about a very small subset of those numbers just isn't very relevant if you're only talking about 5% of that increase.
      - randomdata 2y ago
        "Significant fraction" always speaks to a small, but not unnoticeable, value. 5% is reasonably considered a significant fraction. Where have you come up with this idea that it somehow suggests a significant number?

randomdata 2y ago

> Citation that a "significant fraction" of those who immigrated were facing certain death? "A significant fraction of those people would be dead if they didn't immigrate." -- bryanlarsen, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40598367 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40598367 > Also, implicit in your post seems to be an assertion that the moral responsibility for their deaths would fall on us There is no such assertion. Any more logical fallacies up your sleeve before we move on?

naasking 2y ago
Cute, now maybe look up the definition of "citation" which requires a source for the claim.
- randomdata 2y ago
  I did cite the source, at least as the dictionary defines those terms. You're going to have to fill us in with your own personal, non-standard definition that you are using, I guess.
  - naasking 2y ago
    Ah, so you're being deliberately obtuse. Not interested.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      I suppose asking for a citation could be considered deliberately obtuse. What is even the point of talking to someone else by proxy? If you really have an interest in what someone else had to say, why not go talk to them directly? If you want to have a discussion with the actors in front of you, why not talk to them instead? Oh, right, you're not interested. But then why be here at all?

bryanlarsen 2y ago

Canada has admitted over one million refugees since 1980. Refugees are admitted under 3 criteria: - danger of torture - risk of life - risk of cruel and unusual punishment

naasking 2y ago
The post you replied to showed a graph of almost 1.2 million migrants in 2023 alone, a roughly 5x jump from historical norms of 10+ years ago. You then said "a significant fraction of those people" would be dead otherwise, but now you're saying we've admitted 1 million refugees since 1980. 1 million since 1980 seems totally reasonable but I just can't square up that number with what you said in response to the original graph.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  5% is a significant fraction, especially when "death" is the 5%.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - naasking 2y ago
    I understand what you're saying, but I think that descriptor is very misleading in this context. The original post was discussing a very large uptick in absolute numbers and the subsequent increased demand on resources that would entail. Your response about a very small subset of those numbers just isn't very relevant if you're only talking about 5% of that increase.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      "Significant fraction" always speaks to a small, but not unnoticeable, value. 5% is reasonably considered a significant fraction. Where have you come up with this idea that it somehow suggests a significant number?