rationalskepticism.org

Bernoulli wrote:

Thommo wrote:If you don't understand what I'm saying, why do you keep contradicting me?

I agree that you don't seem to have any idea, but the correct thing to do, surely, then is not to simply assume that the thing you don't understand means some other thing you do.

If I don't understand what you are saying, and you just keep repeating it instead of clarifying it, the only option I have for continuing discussion is to make a guess at what you are talking about. If I guessed wrong, so be it. I'm not a mind reader. If you can't explain what you are going on about properly, then I'm not interested in spending 30 pages trying to work it out.

I did explain, I clarified. You don't have to guess. If you want further clarification I am happy to provide it, but you're definitely not forced to guess. What the statement says is already clear, in particular you kept overlooking the part I underlined a couple of times.

Anyway, in a nutshell I was saying that the problem of an aging population cannot be solved by the method of increasing the working age population via immigration (or otherwise increasing the working age population). It can be cured in other ways though.

Bernoulli wrote:

Anyway, the evidence for your claim still seems the more interesting point of discussion:

Bernoulli wrote:Welfare has been paired back per capita in real terms for decades now in most of our countries.

Thirty more pages of frankly fucking bizarre semantics? No thanks.

Nothing bizarre about it, you misread something. We both agreed that you didn't understand what was written.

But this was a completely different claim. One that you made before I ever said a word and one for which you claimed evidence. Honestly, this looks like a thin excuse at this point, I'll just assume it was bullshit all along, that in fact you don't have any evidence, and consequently the evidence that has been produced in #68 defeats the claim.