Comments by "A T" (@AT-bq1kg) on "History Debunked" channel.

  1. ​ @fanfeck2844 There is no problem with immigration (unless one is xenophobic). The positives outweigh the negatives and it's good for the economy. Yes it's costing money but life is worth more than money. Everyone just needs to tighten their belts
    1
  2.  @fanfeck2844  The benefits are Labour market shortages Diverse skill sets Increased demand which boosts the economy Many immigrants become business owners Diversity of ideas and solutions Demographic balance (declining birth rates and increasing aged population) Tax contributions Giving people equal opportunities
    1
  3.  @fanfeck2844  If your biggest worry is immigrants living in quaint villages in £400k houses then I'd say your problem is xenophobia because you're not interested in the benefits they bring
    1
  4.  @fanfeck2844  No point parroting Nigel farage. Come with some reasonable points and I'll discuss them with you.
    1
  5.  @fanfeck2844  If you don't believe immigrants bring benefits then I'm not sure what else to say to you 😂 immigrants obviously bring benefits, this is something you learn at high school economics
    1
  6.  @fanfeck2844  Yea illegal immigrants who are not yet economically active will have some effect on the economy, but very little. GDP per capita in London and the south east is very much higher than other parts of the country yet about 1/3 of Londoners are immigrants. So if immigrants are not bringing economic benefits what is it that's driving London's economy?
    1
  7.  @fanfeck2844  We need to get the immigrants who are in asylum centres and hotels processed so that they stop costing us money. But a few hundred thousand illegals who are economically inactive certainty isn't responsible for low GDP per capita in certain parts of the country. That's just bonkers to assume that 😂
    1
  8.  @fanfeck2844  If you're available and have time would you like to have an in depth discussion on the benefits migrants bring to a country? We can go over all of the main advantages in your own time.
    1
  9.  @fanfeck2844  Where are you getting your information from?
    1
  10.  @fanfeck2844  Ok. It sounds like you're just swallowing random assertions from people on the internet. Where did you get that number from? £700k. That's ridiculous and clearly not true
    1
  11.  @fanfeck2844  If that were true how do you account for London and the south east? London is made up of 1/3 immigrants. If what you're saying is true then London would cease to exist as an economy 😂
    1
  12.  @fanfeck2844  When immigrants are assimilated into the economy and pay tax they are contributing to the economy. Yes holding people in migrant centres costs the taxpayer money, already covered that, but that clearly calls for the quick processing of those migrants in order to get them working for the country. This is all common knowledge and as an educated person you should already be aware of this. Or is this just a case of parroting what you have heard online without truly understanding it? We have a duty to support asylum seekers, especially as we helped neo cons destroy their countries. It's the least we can do
    1
  13.  @fanfeck2844  Yes London and the south east has always been wealthy but if you're claiming that 1/3 of the population of London is costing the taxpayer £700k per lifetime then London ain't going to be wealthy for long 😂 No amount of banking can fix that
    1
  14.  @fanfeck2844  But it isn't just London that has a good economy. There's Cardiff, Manchester, Leeds, Scotland, Birmingham, Nottingham, Leicester, Guildford, Reading. All of these areas have a large number of immigrants contributing.
    1
  15.  @fanfeck2844  Birmingham and Leicester have strong economies. Also Nottingham. Coventry not so much
    1
  16.  @MushMushMuscovaMush  Go to Saudi or Thailand then.
    1
  17.  @MushMushMuscovaMush  I live in London, have done since 2010. There is nobody disrespecting the culture here. It's all working fine last time I went out I could get all the services I normally could just fine.
    1
  18.  @MushMushMuscovaMush  WEF? Isn't that where the bankers all hang out? Yet someone is claiming that it's the banking industry that's keeping London afloat. Not a very good business model if it is the bankers doing all this 😆
    1
  19.  @fanfeck2844  How many immigrants are doing cash only jobs? And even if they are they still pay consumption taxes. But is cash only just an immigrant problem? You seem to be suggesting that it's only immigrants who are avoiding income tax. And how are you going to get rid of them?
    1
  20.  @fanfeck2844  Tell me how many of those immigrants on the black market will be drawing a pension? 😂 I'll tell you now, zero. So it's better to have them here paying consumption taxes at least. It's not like we have too little jobs or that they are stealing jobs from residents
    1
  21.  @fanfeck2844  So tell me, break it down in real numbers please exactly how am illegal immigrant takes more in services than they put in by avoiding income tax? The only thing we have that is free is the NHS. Are you trying to tell me each black market worker avoiding paying income tax and NI is using £700k per lifetime of NHS services?
    1
  22.  @fanfeck2844  You need to pay NI for a qualifying period to get a state pension. How many illegal immigrants working on the black market can afford kids without claiming state benefits?
    1
  23.  @fanfeck2844  You need 10 years of contributions to receive state pension. 35 years to receive the full benefit. Can you explain how your employer can pay your NI stamp if you're an illegal immigrant? How does that work exactly?
    1
  24.  @fanfeck2844  Can you also tell me if you're an illegal immigrant on a low wage how can you afford to raise children without claiming benefits? How can you claim benefits for your children if you're an illegal immigrant? How does all of this work? Help me understand it
    1
  25.  @fanfeck2844  Illegal immigrants have no NI stamps paid for them, they have no right to work therefore no right to pay taxes or claim state benefits such as a pension. If they are working for a low wage they certainly can't afford to raise a family without support from the state therefore cannot take resources from the education budget. They are not entitled to any pension until 10 years of contributions and they won't receive the full benefit until they have worked in the country for 35 years. I fully accept that there are a certain amount of illegal working in the UK but they certainly aren't raising families and getting full state pension only after 1 year of work. Where are you getting your information from?
    1
  26.  @fanfeck2844  Just give me the link or something to find the proof for claims you're making please. Sounds weird. All my info comes from government websites in the UK
    1
  27.  @fanfeck2844  You only need one qualifying year if you're a man born between the years 1945-1951 and a woman born between the years 1950-1953. You're an idiot mate 😂
    1
  28. @cmdrreggit  I am not the one who believes we live in a 95% anglo Saxon country. You should be addressing the person who made that claim
    1
  29.  @Harry_FlashmanVC  Lets look at a fairly recent (ISH) poll on asylum alone. 31% of those polled say we should allow the current numbers. 24% said we should allow MORE of this group. 11% said we should not allow this group at all. 11% said they don't know. So 55% of the "country" are in favour of at least the current numbers being allowed in, nearly half of those want more. 11% on the fence and only 11% say no. So where are your evidences that contradict that?
    1
  30.  @Harry_FlashmanVC  Lets also keep in mind that this from yougov, the same polling that Matt Goodwin cites
    1
  31.  @cmdrreggit  How has it caused destabilisation?
    1
  32.  @cmdrreggit  I think you FEEL that it has caused destabilisation but I'd like to see some evidence. Not citations but reasoned arguments.
    1
  33.  @cmdrreggit  Ok you claim the polls are badly skewed. I'd like you to provided more information on how this is the case. Talking to people of only English heritage is somehow not skewed then? This is the double standard fallacy, you are claiming that one demographic are skewing the polls (without any substantial argument or evidence to support the claim) and on the other hand assert that talking to people of English heritage is if that alone constitutues completely reliable data.
    1
  34.  @Harry_FlashmanVC "Serious minded journalists" and "virtually every video" and anecodtes from a few people you know is not evidence and it is especially not an argument. "Serious minded" is a perception.
    1
  35.  @Harry_FlashmanVC  So your evidence for your claims come from an episode of yes prime minister? And you expect reasonable people to take you seriously?
    1
  36.  @Harry_FlashmanVC  No, it's not an afterthought. Your brain farts are not thoughts. 😂
    1
  37.  @Harry_FlashmanVC  The fallacy in this scenario is known as the appeal to authority (or argumentum ad verecundiam). This fallacy occurs when someone argues that a claim is true or false based solely on the authority of a source rather than on evidence or reasoning. In this case, the individual is dismissing the reliability of opinion polls based on a fictional portrayal from a television show, rather than providing evidence or logical reasoning to support their claim. While "Yes, Prime Minister" may offer satire and commentary on political matters, it is not a credible source for assessing the validity of opinion polls. This reliance on a fictional context undermines a constructive discussion about the actual reliability of polling data.
    1
  38.  @Harry_FlashmanVC  Everyone's opinions are skewed. But you claimed that the country is not happy, so I asked you how you got that information and you came up with a lot of irrational codswallop. The country doesn't mean "English heritage". It means the residents polled at the time. I refuted your claim with reliable evidence and all you came back with was nonsense
    1
  39.  @Harry_FlashmanVC  Your arguments are not actual arguments. They are more like brain farts
    1
  40.  @cmdrreggit  Reducing everything down to one cause is a fallacy called casual reductionism.
    1
  41.  @Harry_FlashmanVC  Brain flatulance is not the same as a well reasoned argument. No citations needed, but a reasonable argument is required.
    1
  42.  @cmdrreggit  Glasgow was also extremely high in violent crime. Mostly white Scottish people. What will you do with this information? Will you change your mind or will you dismiss it and double down on your ideology because truth doesn't matter to you really.
    1
  43.  @cmdrreggit  The cherry picking fallacy, also known as the fallacy of incomplete evidence, occurs when someone selectively presents only the data or evidence that supports their argument while ignoring or omitting evidence that contradicts it. This selective use of information creates a misleading or biased perspective, leading to an unsupported conclusion. For example, if someone argues that a particular diet is effective for weight loss by only citing success stories while disregarding numerous cases where individuals did not achieve similar results, they are engaging in cherry picking. This fallacy undermines the integrity of an argument by failing to consider the whole picture and can lead to flawed reasoning and misconceptions. To avoid cherry picking, it’s important to examine all relevant evidence and consider the broader context of the data being presented.
    1
  44.  @Harry_FlashmanVC  The fallacy in the statement you provided is primarily an ad hominem fallacy. It attacks the character and behavior of the individual (in this case, their rudeness) instead of addressing the substance of their argument or position. By focusing on the person's demeanor rather than the actual points being made, it diverts attention from the argument itself. Additionally, it could also be viewed as a form of poisoning the well, where negative traits or behaviors are used to discredit a person's argument before they even present it. This tactic can undermine constructive dialogue and prevent a fair evaluation of the ideas being discussed.
    1
  45.  @Harry_FlashmanVC  The statement that "conviction of one's position is consistent with a particular adolescent phase" can be seen as an example of the hasty generalization fallacy. This occurs when a broad conclusion is drawn based on insufficient or selective evidence. In this case, it implies that individuals who are strongly convicted in their beliefs are immature or adolescent, without adequately considering the diversity of reasons people hold strong beliefs. Additionally, it could also reflect a form of sweeping generalization, where a specific behavior (strong conviction) is unfairly applied to a broader group (all individuals with strong beliefs) based on a stereotype (associated with adolescence). Both fallacies overlook the complexity of human beliefs and the various factors that can contribute to them.
    1
  46.  @MushMushMuscovaMush  If I can see and show using reasonable arguments and evidence that you guys are easily led down the garden path I wonder what our counties enemies are saying about you lot? I wonder if they will or even are using this to their advantage?
    1
  47.  @KenFullman  In the statement regarding the video with a high view count but low like ratio, along with supportive comments, several logical fallacies can be identified: Hasty Generalization: The conclusion that someone is actively deleting negative comments is drawn from insufficient evidence. The low ratio of likes to views and the nature of the comments do not definitively prove that comment deletion is occurring. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: This fallacy is implied if one assumes that because the comments are overwhelmingly positive, this must be a result of negative comments being deleted. It mistakenly correlates the two events without evidence of a causal relationship. Confirmation Bias: If the person already believes that negative feedback is being suppressed, they may focus on evidence that supports this belief (the low like ratio and supportive comments) while ignoring alternative explanations (such as audience engagement patterns). Ad Hominem (Circumstantial): While not directly present in the initial statement, if the discussion were to shift to attacking the character of those who support the video or assume they have ulterior motives, it would become an ad hominem attack rather than addressing the content of the comments or video. Appeal to Emotion: The assertion that "something tells me" suggests an emotional intuition rather than a reasoned argument, relying on feelings rather than objective evidence. By recognizing these fallacies, one can engage in a more critical analysis of the claims being made and seek more substantial evidence before drawing conclusions.
    1
  48.  @MushMushMuscovaMush  Are you serious? 😂
    1
  49.  @cmdrreggit  How did I move the goalposts? You seem to be claiming that immigrants are responsible for the rise in crime when there are areas that have extraordinary high crime rates but hardly any immigrants - like Glasgow. How exactly is that moving the goalpost? Explain
    1
  50.  @MushMushMuscovaMush  Unless you have something coherent to add I'm going to refrain from responding for the time being. There are other comments I would like to address
    1