Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What should happen to anyone that's used this sham service and been accepted to stay" They should live as gay for the rest of their lives. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What should happen to anyone that's used this sham service and been accepted to stay They should live as gay for the rest of their lives." They need to be made to create fab accounts as gay and exposed to dick pics in their inbox on a daily basis. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though it shows how broken and full of loopholes the asylum framework is and how easy it is to exploit this. And no politician seems to be willing to change that." It is bad and a whole industry seems to have evolved in scamming the system. For many politicians it's far easier to dismiss it as far right racist tripe. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ultimately it’s just too much trouble to deal with any of this stuff so it’s easier for those assessing the claims to just tick boxes, let them in, and head home early." That's probably being unfair on people who are possibly not tooled to do a thorough job and would have guidelines for how far they can push, whose managers are petrified of litigation. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though it shows how broken and full of loopholes the asylum framework is and how easy it is to exploit this. And no politician seems to be willing to change that." Exactly £5bn a year spent on migrants. Probably treble that with nhs, benefits, pensions, legal, courts, judges, free vapes sent to asylum hotels, billion pound profits for Serco, Clearsprings and Mears Group etc etc And all the hidden costs, we let to a registered housing association for a while (not specifically asylum but had a few), they were adding £100 a week licence fee to the rent for their ‘services’. Money coming out of some govt pot. Who’s managing the army barracks now being used to house the faux gays | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Turns out it's not just pretending to be gay. Even faking one's religion and political views: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86eew6jpjgo" It just gets worse and worse. How many have pulled this stunt and now got the right to remain sucking up tax payers money. I would have thought any application linked to these people should be reassessed at the least | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Turns out it's not just pretending to be gay. Even faking one's religion and political views: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86eew6jpjgo It just gets worse and worse. How many have pulled this stunt and now got the right to remain sucking up tax payers money. I would have thought any application linked to these people should be reassessed at the least " ‘In 2023, the most recent year for which data is available, there were initial decisions on 3,430 LGBT asylum claims, and nearly 1,400 new asylum claims lodged on the basis of sexual orientation.’ (From bbc article) 5k a year it would appear | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Turns out it's not just pretending to be gay. Even faking one's religion and political views: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86eew6jpjgo It just gets worse and worse. How many have pulled this stunt and now got the right to remain sucking up tax payers money. I would have thought any application linked to these people should be reassessed at the least ‘In 2023, the most recent year for which data is available, there were initial decisions on 3,430 LGBT asylum claims, and nearly 1,400 new asylum claims lodged on the basis of sexual orientation.’ (From bbc article) 5k a year it would appear " People who called out that the system is being exploited by frauds, were told to shut up because "human rights". And they will be surprised why Reform is getting so much support. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Turns out it's not just pretending to be gay. Even faking one's religion and political views: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86eew6jpjgo" Also domestic abuse: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crl19dzdd38o | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Turns out it's not just pretending to be gay. Even faking one's religion and political views: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86eew6jpjgo Also domestic abuse: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crl19dzdd38o" Wow! The BBC is on a roll. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are the gift that just keeps on giving. Wouldn't it be nice to have a government that puts hardworking British people first,it's not too much to ask is it?" Tories and Labour have cunted prospects for working people in favour of freeloaders, migrants and companies that manage them. Mears, Serco and Clearsprings making billions Tax rises, and frozen thresholds for workers. Roll on 07 May. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are the gift that just keeps on giving. Wouldn't it be nice to have a government that puts hardworking British people first,it's not too much to ask is it? Tories and Labour have cunted prospects for working people in favour of freeloaders, migrants and companies that manage them. Mears, Serco and Clearsprings making billions Tax rises, and frozen thresholds for workers. Roll on 07 May. " Not exactly local issues are they? You vote on local issues in local elections and the national stuff on the national election | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are the gift that just keeps on giving. Wouldn't it be nice to have a government that puts hardworking British people first,it's not too much to ask is it? Tories and Labour have cunted prospects for working people in favour of freeloaders, migrants and companies that manage them. Mears, Serco and Clearsprings making billions Tax rises, and frozen thresholds for workers. Roll on 07 May. Not exactly local issues are they? You vote on local issues in local elections and the national stuff on the national election " I guess he can vote for any reason he likes. Maybe tell that to the Greens who seem to be standing for election in Gaza no matter what the poll is for. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are the gift that just keeps on giving. Wouldn't it be nice to have a government that puts hardworking British people first,it's not too much to ask is it? Tories and Labour have cunted prospects for working people in favour of freeloaders, migrants and companies that manage them. Mears, Serco and Clearsprings making billions Tax rises, and frozen thresholds for workers. Roll on 07 May. Not exactly local issues are they? You vote on local issues in local elections and the national stuff on the national election I guess he can vote for any reason he likes. Maybe tell that to the Greens who seem to be standing for election in Gaza no matter what the poll is for." Might explain why people don't get local services they want when they vote on national issues instead of bin collection | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are the gift that just keeps on giving. Wouldn't it be nice to have a government that puts hardworking British people first,it's not too much to ask is it? Tories and Labour have cunted prospects for working people in favour of freeloaders, migrants and companies that manage them. Mears, Serco and Clearsprings making billions Tax rises, and frozen thresholds for workers. Roll on 07 May. Not exactly local issues are they? You vote on local issues in local elections and the national stuff on the national election I guess he can vote for any reason he likes. Maybe tell that to the Greens who seem to be standing for election in Gaza no matter what the poll is for. Might explain why people don't get local services they want when they vote on national issues instead of bin collection " Things often coincide. I’ll primarily be voting at the local election to get rid of the dismal Starmer. That coincidentally will hopefully get rid of the dismal local Labour Council which gave up collecting bins a year ago. For some reason Labour are useless at national and local level. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are the gift that just keeps on giving. Wouldn't it be nice to have a government that puts hardworking British people first,it's not too much to ask is it? Tories and Labour have cunted prospects for working people in favour of freeloaders, migrants and companies that manage them. Mears, Serco and Clearsprings making billions Tax rises, and frozen thresholds for workers. Roll on 07 May. Not exactly local issues are they? You vote on local issues in local elections and the national stuff on the national election I guess he can vote for any reason he likes. Maybe tell that to the Greens who seem to be standing for election in Gaza no matter what the poll is for. Might explain why people don't get local services they want when they vote on national issues instead of bin collection Things often coincide. I’ll primarily be voting at the local election to get rid of the dismal Starmer. That coincidentally will hopefully get rid of the dismal local Labour Council which gave up collecting bins a year ago. For some reason Labour are useless at national and local level." Local elections can't get rid of Starmer?!? Only the MPs could do that at this stage and even then labour don't have the same mechanisms as the conservatives | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Local elections can't get rid of Starmer?!?" Oh yes they can. If enough Labour councillors are lost in the local elections, the party will consider Starmer to be a liability, and he'll be kicked out. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Local elections can't get rid of Starmer?!? Oh yes they can. If enough Labour councillors are lost in the local elections, the party will consider Starmer to be a liability, and he'll be kicked out." I don't have a crystal ball. But history would suggest that it won't. 1. Labour have never deposed of a leader. They don't have the mechanisms or the stomach for it 2. Number 10 and labour in general are prepared for a lashing. They'll say incumbency mid terms still 3 years to GE. So you might as well vote in the interests of your area. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Interesting how quickly this progressed from Fraudulent Asylum Claims ➡️ Immigrants ➡️ Starmer. " Ah yes we forgot. “What was your greatest achievement when you were Prime Minister Mr Starmer”? “I was not involved” “I wasn’t made aware of that” “That wasn’t within my remit”. “Liz Truss” “Sorry I must go I have an urgent Zoom call with the EU”. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Interesting how quickly this progressed from Fraudulent Asylum Claims ➡️ Immigrants ➡️ Starmer. Ah yes we forgot. “What was your greatest achievement when you were Prime Minister Mr Starmer”? “I was not involved” “I wasn’t made aware of that” “That wasn’t within my remit”. “Liz Truss” “Sorry I must go I have an urgent Zoom call with the EU”." He triggers you. We get that. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Interesting how quickly this progressed from Fraudulent Asylum Claims ➡️ Immigrants ➡️ Starmer. Ah yes we forgot. “What was your greatest achievement when you were Prime Minister Mr Starmer”? “I was not involved” “I wasn’t made aware of that” “That wasn’t within my remit”. “Liz Truss” “Sorry I must go I have an urgent Zoom call with the EU”. He triggers you. We get that." That would be like being triggered by a blob of hair gel. I don’t think so. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though it shows how broken and full of loopholes the asylum framework is and how easy it is to exploit this. And no politician seems to be willing to change that." Explain how you've come to the "full of loopholes" conclusion...the story highlights a few bad actors trying to game the system, that's it. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though it shows how broken and full of loopholes the asylum framework is and how easy it is to exploit this. And no politician seems to be willing to change that. Explain how you've come to the "full of loopholes" conclusion...the story highlights a few bad actors trying to game the system, that's it." You are having a system in which people can claim for asylum using characteristics which are unverifiable. These problems were pointed out by many in the past only to be told that "it's not happening". What you saw here is not just individual asylum seekers trying to exploit these loopholes. You are seeing lawyers who are making a business out of these loopholes. The scale would definitely be bigger than "just a few bad actors". | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though it shows how broken and full of loopholes the asylum framework is and how easy it is to exploit this. And no politician seems to be willing to change that. Explain how you've come to the "full of loopholes" conclusion...the story highlights a few bad actors trying to game the system, that's it. You are having a system in which people can claim for asylum using characteristics which are unverifiable. These problems were pointed out by many in the past only to be told that "it's not happening". What you saw here is not just individual asylum seekers trying to exploit these loopholes. You are seeing lawyers who are making a business out of these loopholes. The scale would definitely be bigger than "just a few bad actors"." How do you know that the scale is definitely bigger? More fuzzy feels? It shouldn't come as a shock to learn that lawyers exploit loopholes. It's pretty much a core part of their job. I even heard of a case where someone pretended to have bone spurs to avoid being drafted into the army. Shock! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The uk is the easiest country to scam. It's not called 'Treasure Island' for nothing." Much experience of other countries? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though it shows how broken and full of loopholes the asylum framework is and how easy it is to exploit this. And no politician seems to be willing to change that. Explain how you've come to the "full of loopholes" conclusion...the story highlights a few bad actors trying to game the system, that's it. You are having a system in which people can claim for asylum using characteristics which are unverifiable. These problems were pointed out by many in the past only to be told that "it's not happening". What you saw here is not just individual asylum seekers trying to exploit these loopholes. You are seeing lawyers who are making a business out of these loopholes. The scale would definitely be bigger than "just a few bad actors". How do you know that the scale is definitely bigger? More fuzzy feels? It shouldn't come as a shock to learn that lawyers exploit loopholes. It's pretty much a core part of their job. I even heard of a case where someone pretended to have bone spurs to avoid being drafted into the army. Shock!" If you have seen the information, you can clearly see that it's a basic business tactics these scumbag layers use. So it's not hard to guess that it's happening in bigger scale. And FYI, it's illegal for lawyers to ask clients to deliberately lie, which is what they did here. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The uk is the easiest country to scam. It's not called 'Treasure Island' for nothing." Snappy slogans work better when they are true - but that one isn't, despite what the Daily Mail wants you to believe | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seriously though it shows how broken and full of loopholes the asylum framework is and how easy it is to exploit this. And no politician seems to be willing to change that. Explain how you've come to the "full of loopholes" conclusion...the story highlights a few bad actors trying to game the system, that's it. You are having a system in which people can claim for asylum using characteristics which are unverifiable. These problems were pointed out by many in the past only to be told that "it's not happening". What you saw here is not just individual asylum seekers trying to exploit these loopholes. You are seeing lawyers who are making a business out of these loopholes. The scale would definitely be bigger than "just a few bad actors". How do you know that the scale is definitely bigger? More fuzzy feels? It shouldn't come as a shock to learn that lawyers exploit loopholes. It's pretty much a core part of their job. I even heard of a case where someone pretended to have bone spurs to avoid being drafted into the army. Shock! If you have seen the information, you can clearly see that it's a basic business tactics these scumbag layers use. So it's not hard to guess that it's happening in bigger scale. And FYI, it's illegal for lawyers to ask clients to deliberately lie, which is what they did here." Oh so it's just a guess on your part - got it. Yes it's illegal for lawyers to coach clients in lies. That's why it was a story. There is a huge leap from "we've uncovered attempted fraud" to "that fraud is widespread and endemic and always goes undetected" - which seems to be your claim. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"End of the day, giving asylum is philanthropy. Maybe people who love having them here could start a fund and pay for their housing and weekly allowances. Based on how much money is in these funds, we can set a maximum limit on how many asylum seekers are allowed 🤷♂️" It's called doing our duty as a civilised country, to help others. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yowzers Robert Jenerick and Reform will not hear asylum claims based on sexualiity. It's not just skin colour they hate it's also gays!!!" We've been through this in another thread. Reform don't have anything against skin colour. They're against all foreigners, whatever their skin colour. "Because guess what....it's difference they hate " Yes, that's why they have a brown-skinned Muslim as Shadow Home Secretary, because he's no different to any other British person. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"End of the day, giving asylum is philanthropy. Maybe people who love having them here could start a fund and pay for their housing and weekly allowances. Based on how much money is in these funds, we can set a maximum limit on how many asylum seekers are allowed 🤷♂️ It's called doing our duty as a civilised country, to help others. " There are millions of people around the world who are asking for help. Why should I help these specific people? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is a huge leap from "we've uncovered attempted fraud" to "that fraud is widespread and endemic and always goes undetected" - which seems to be your claim." It's also a huge leap to go from hard evidence of fraud to saying that it's just "a few", but that's what you did earlier on. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Oh so it's just a guess on your part - got it. " You are also guessing here. You don't have evidence that the system isn't being exploited. We have enough information to do an educated guess based on what the lawyers did. " Yes it's illegal for lawyers to coach clients in lies. That's why it was a story. " You said "It's pretty much a core part of their job." Asking clients to tell lies isn't a core part of their job. " There is a huge leap from "we've uncovered attempted fraud" to "that fraud is widespread and endemic and always goes undetected" - which seems to be your claim. " There is enough reason to believe that it is widespread. Your own belief isn't based on evidence either, as I mentioned above. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is a huge leap from "we've uncovered attempted fraud" to "that fraud is widespread and endemic and always goes undetected" - which seems to be your claim. It's also a huge leap to go from hard evidence of fraud to saying that it's just "a few", but that's what you did earlier on." The BBC documentary uncovered a few. If you want to claim it's widespread from that then you need evidence for that. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You said "It's pretty much a core part of their job." Asking clients to tell lies isn't a core part of their job. " Nope. I said finding loopholes was a core part of their job. Loopholes were one of the things you were upset about, remember? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You said "It's pretty much a core part of their job." Asking clients to tell lies isn't a core part of their job. Nope. I said finding loopholes was a core part of their job. Loopholes were one of the things you were upset about, remember? " The loopholes are such that they can be exploited by telling lies which cannot be verified. And that's what the lawyers did. What they did was illegal. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is a huge leap from "we've uncovered attempted fraud" to "that fraud is widespread and endemic and always goes undetected" - which seems to be your claim. It's also a huge leap to go from hard evidence of fraud to saying that it's just "a few", but that's what you did earlier on. The BBC documentary uncovered a few. If you want to claim it's widespread from that then you need evidence for that." People make educated guess all the time. You are also trusting that there weren't more such cases without any evidence. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yowzers Robert Jenerick and Reform will not hear asylum claims based on sexualiity. It's not just skin colour they hate it's also gays!!! We've been through this in another thread. Reform don't have anything against skin colour. They're against all foreigners, whatever their skin colour. Because guess what....it's difference they hate Yes, that's why they have a brown-skinned Muslim as Shadow Home Secretary, because he's no different to any other British person." The sl@vers also had black overseers. Useful idiots. Zia also resigned over Pochins remarks on burkas then suddenly found it in him to go back as spokesperson on home affairs for Reform. Shadow...... anything is a constitutional role Reform aren't the official opposition and therefore can not be Shadow anything | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"End of the day, giving asylum is philanthropy. Maybe people who love having them here could start a fund and pay for their housing and weekly allowances. Based on how much money is in these funds, we can set a maximum limit on how many asylum seekers are allowed 🤷♂️ It's called doing our duty as a civilised country, to help others. There are millions of people around the world who are asking for help. Why should I help these specific people?" So much kindness | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You said "It's pretty much a core part of their job." Asking clients to tell lies isn't a core part of their job. Nope. I said finding loopholes was a core part of their job. Loopholes were one of the things you were upset about, remember? " It's fine if it means businesses pay less | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You said "It's pretty much a core part of their job." Asking clients to tell lies isn't a core part of their job. Nope. I said finding loopholes was a core part of their job. Loopholes were one of the things you were upset about, remember? The loopholes are such that they can be exploited by telling lies which cannot be verified. And that's what the lawyers did. What they did was illegal." . We all agree that what they did was illegal. But the concept of a legal loophole isn't. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You said "It's pretty much a core part of their job." Asking clients to tell lies isn't a core part of their job. Nope. I said finding loopholes was a core part of their job. Loopholes were one of the things you were upset about, remember? The loopholes are such that they can be exploited by telling lies which cannot be verified. And that's what the lawyers did. What they did was illegal.. We all agree that what they did was illegal. But the concept of a legal loophole isn't." We all know that too. My original point was that these loopholes are open to exploitation. We have already seen different lawyers using different tactics - sexuality, religion and political views to make up their claims. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"End of the day, giving asylum is philanthropy. Maybe people who love having them here could start a fund and pay for their housing and weekly allowances. Based on how much money is in these funds, we can set a maximum limit on how many asylum seekers are allowed 🤷♂️ It's called doing our duty as a civilised country, to help others. There are millions of people around the world who are asking for help. Why should I help these specific people? So much kindness " You haven't shown any sign of kindness either  | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People make educated guess all the time. You are also trusting that there weren't more such cases without any evidence." An educated guess is still a guess, and could still be completely wrong. Here's the acid test- is it possible that your assumptions are completely wrong? Yes or No? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People make educated guess all the time. You are also trusting that there weren't more such cases without any evidence. An educated guess is still a guess, and could still be completely wrong. Here's the acid test- is it possible that your assumptions are completely wrong? Yes or No?" Is it possible that your assumption that fraud did not happen in bigger scale is completely wrong? Yes or No? My answer will be the same. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You said "It's pretty much a core part of their job." Asking clients to tell lies isn't a core part of their job. Nope. I said finding loopholes was a core part of their job. Loopholes were one of the things you were upset about, remember? The loopholes are such that they can be exploited by telling lies which cannot be verified. And that's what the lawyers did. What they did was illegal.. We all agree that what they did was illegal. But the concept of a legal loophole isn't. We all know that too. My original point was that these loopholes are open to exploitation. We have already seen different lawyers using different tactics - sexuality, religion and political views to make up their claims." Is your issue with sexuality, religion and political views? Or people lying about them? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You said "It's pretty much a core part of their job." Asking clients to tell lies isn't a core part of their job. Nope. I said finding loopholes was a core part of their job. Loopholes were one of the things you were upset about, remember? The loopholes are such that they can be exploited by telling lies which cannot be verified. And that's what the lawyers did. What they did was illegal.. We all agree that what they did was illegal. But the concept of a legal loophole isn't. We all know that too. My original point was that these loopholes are open to exploitation. We have already seen different lawyers using different tactics - sexuality, religion and political views to make up their claims. Is your issue with sexuality, religion and political views? Or people lying about them?" My issue is with the fact that we can't verify any of them. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is it possible that your assumption that fraud did not happen in bigger scale is completely wrong? Yes or No? My answer will be the same." Yes it's possible. And whether or not I'm wrong will depend on evidence. But as yet there isn't any. Why does a lack of evidence not bother you? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is it possible that your assumption that fraud did not happen in bigger scale is completely wrong? Yes or No? My answer will be the same. Yes it's possible. And whether or not I'm wrong will depend on evidence. But as yet there isn't any. Why does a lack of evidence not bother you?" Whether or not I'm wrong will also depend on evidence. I haven't found any evidence that I am wrong yet. You don't see the fallacy with your argument here? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You said "It's pretty much a core part of their job." Asking clients to tell lies isn't a core part of their job. Nope. I said finding loopholes was a core part of their job. Loopholes were one of the things you were upset about, remember? The loopholes are such that they can be exploited by telling lies which cannot be verified. And that's what the lawyers did. What they did was illegal.. We all agree that what they did was illegal. But the concept of a legal loophole isn't. We all know that too. My original point was that these loopholes are open to exploitation. We have already seen different lawyers using different tactics - sexuality, religion and political views to make up their claims. Is your issue with sexuality, religion and political views? Or people lying about them? My issue is with the fact that we can't verify any of them." OK, but verification is about credibility rather than certainty - and that's exactly what the asylum process drills into. Just because that process isn't infallible doesn't mean the entire thing is unfit for purpose. Take insurance as an everyday example. Insurance fraud happens and people sometimes get away with it, but does that mean that the the concept of insurance is fatally flawed and no payments should ever be made again, regardless of merit? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You said "It's pretty much a core part of their job." Asking clients to tell lies isn't a core part of their job. Nope. I said finding loopholes was a core part of their job. Loopholes were one of the things you were upset about, remember? The loopholes are such that they can be exploited by telling lies which cannot be verified. And that's what the lawyers did. What they did was illegal.. We all agree that what they did was illegal. But the concept of a legal loophole isn't. We all know that too. My original point was that these loopholes are open to exploitation. We have already seen different lawyers using different tactics - sexuality, religion and political views to make up their claims. Is your issue with sexuality, religion and political views? Or people lying about them? My issue is with the fact that we can't verify any of them. OK, but verification is about credibility rather than certainty - and that's exactly what the asylum process drills into. Just because that process isn't infallible doesn't mean the entire thing is unfit for purpose. Take insurance as an everyday example. Insurance fraud happens and people sometimes get away with it, but does that mean that the the concept of insurance is fatally flawed and no payments should ever be made again, regardless of merit?" Insurance is between a company and an individual. When frauds increase, insurance prices go up. There is no defense mechanism in the asylum system. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You said "It's pretty much a core part of their job." Asking clients to tell lies isn't a core part of their job. Nope. I said finding loopholes was a core part of their job. Loopholes were one of the things you were upset about, remember? The loopholes are such that they can be exploited by telling lies which cannot be verified. And that's what the lawyers did. What they did was illegal.. We all agree that what they did was illegal. But the concept of a legal loophole isn't. We all know that too. My original point was that these loopholes are open to exploitation. We have already seen different lawyers using different tactics - sexuality, religion and political views to make up their claims. Is your issue with sexuality, religion and political views? Or people lying about them? My issue is with the fact that we can't verify any of them." It's an asylum process, it's the purpose to find out who they are. So your concerns are misplaced | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is it possible that your assumption that fraud did not happen in bigger scale is completely wrong? Yes or No? My answer will be the same. Yes it's possible. And whether or not I'm wrong will depend on evidence. But as yet there isn't any. Why does a lack of evidence not bother you? Whether or not I'm wrong will also depend on evidence. I haven't found any evidence that I am wrong yet. You don't see the fallacy with your argument here?" . 🤣🤣🤣 By that logic, if I can't prove that the vast majority of men aren't sexual abusers, then the vast majority of men must must be sexual abusers. See the fallacy there? Possibility isn't evidence. Nobody is saying that fraud doesn't happen - the BBC documentary shows it does. The jump you are making is going from "some cases exist" to "it's obviously endemic". | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yowzers Robert Jenerick and Reform will not hear asylum claims based on sexualiity. It's not just skin colour they hate it's also gays!!!" "We've been through this in another thread. Reform don't have anything against skin colour. They're against all foreigners, whatever their skin colour." "Because guess what....it's difference they hate" "Yes, that's why they have a brown-skinned Muslim as Shadow Home Secretary, because he's no different to any other British person." "The sl@vers also had black overseers." Yes they did, black people doing the hard work. But Reform are putting Zia Yusuf front and centre and expecting us to trust and respect him. What terrible racists. "Zia also resigned over Pochins remarks on burkas ..." Yes he did, and the whole party scrambled to get him back again. That's how much they hate brown-skinned people. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Insurance is between a company and an individual. When frauds increase, insurance prices go up. There is no defense mechanism in the asylum system." So you don't want to abolish the concept of insurance even though it's imperfect. Great. What about the imperfect public systems that don't "price adjust" - courts, police, healthcare, etc. Get rid of them or accept the imperfections? Claiming is that the asylum system is totally undefended is cobblers. The process consists of multiple interviews and consistency checks, at requirement to meet specific legal criteria, country-of-origin evidence,appeals processes which cut both ways. Not infallible but certainly not undefended. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yowzers Robert Jenerick and Reform will not hear asylum claims based on sexualiity. It's not just skin colour they hate it's also gays!!! We've been through this in another thread. Reform don't have anything against skin colour. They're against all foreigners, whatever their skin colour. Because guess what....it's difference they hate Yes, that's why they have a brown-skinned Muslim as Shadow Home Secretary, because he's no different to any other British person. The sl@vers also had black overseers. Yes they did, black people doing the hard work. But Reform are putting Zia Yusuf front and centre and expecting us to trust and respect him. What terrible racists. Zia also resigned over Pochins remarks on burkas ... Yes he did, and the whole party scrambled to get him back again. That's how much they hate brown-skinned people." Or how much they like a beard | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Zia also resigned over Pochins remarks on burkas ..." "Yes he did, and the whole party scrambled to get him back again. That's how much they hate brown-skinned people." "Or how much they like a beard" I might join then if they appreciate a good beard. No one else seems to. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Zia also resigned over Pochins remarks on burkas ... Yes he did, and the whole party scrambled to get him back again. That's how much they hate brown-skinned people. Or how much they like a beard I might join then if they appreciate a good beard. No one else seems to." If the suit fash suits fit bro! Narnia has nothing on them | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Today also exposed was the trend if claiming domestic abuse to get to stay and get fast tracked into permanent housing. This claim alone has increased to nearly 5500 per year" . The Migrant Victims of Domestic Abuse Concession gives temporary permission to stay for 3 months. It's not a guarantee of permanent housing. There's also a big difference between an application and a successful application. The number of such concessions given for 2025 was 308. But none of that seems to make a dent in the belief that anyone can turn up, tick a box and get a free house. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What should happen to anyone that's used this sham service and been accepted to stay They should live as gay for the rest of their lives. They need to be made to create fab accounts as gay and exposed to dick pics in their inbox on a daily basis." A single guy with "straight" in their profile would qualify lol | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Insurance is between a company and an individual. When frauds increase, insurance prices go up. There is no defense mechanism in the asylum system. So you don't want to abolish the concept of insurance even though it's imperfect. Great. What about the imperfect public systems that don't "price adjust" - courts, police, healthcare, etc. Get rid of them or accept the imperfections? Claiming is that the asylum system is totally undefended is cobblers. The process consists of multiple interviews and consistency checks, at requirement to meet specific legal criteria, country-of-origin evidence,appeals processes which cut both ways. Not infallible but certainly not undefended." Those are issues which can be improved on and worked around, which the insurance companies for example already do. What suggestion do you have to ensure reduction of number of people pretending to be gay to claim asylum? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is it possible that your assumption that fraud did not happen in bigger scale is completely wrong? Yes or No? My answer will be the same. Yes it's possible. And whether or not I'm wrong will depend on evidence. But as yet there isn't any. Why does a lack of evidence not bother you? Whether or not I'm wrong will also depend on evidence. I haven't found any evidence that I am wrong yet. You don't see the fallacy with your argument here?. 🤣🤣🤣 By that logic, if I can't prove that the vast majority of men aren't sexual abusers, then the vast majority of men must must be sexual abusers. See the fallacy there? Possibility isn't evidence. Nobody is saying that fraud doesn't happen - the BBC documentary shows it does. The jump you are making is going from "some cases exist" to "it's obviously endemic"." 🤣🤣🤣 You are also making a jump that you pretend like you are not making. We don't have evidence to prove categorically that fraud being widespread. There isn't evidence to prove categorically that it doesn't happen either. These lawyers are running a business. Considering how confident they are about the answers you have to give to scam the system, I think the probability of this being more widespread and they have done it for much longer to reach this point. You personally believe that it doesn't happen, which is fair. But your opinion on this isn't any more rational than mine. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Insurance is between a company and an individual. When frauds increase, insurance prices go up. There is no defense mechanism in the asylum system. So you don't want to abolish the concept of insurance even though it's imperfect. Great. What about the imperfect public systems that don't "price adjust" - courts, police, healthcare, etc. Get rid of them or accept the imperfections? Claiming is that the asylum system is totally undefended is cobblers. The process consists of multiple interviews and consistency checks, at requirement to meet specific legal criteria, country-of-origin evidence,appeals processes which cut both ways. Not infallible but certainly not undefended. Those are issues which can be improved on and worked around, which the insurance companies for example already do. What suggestion do you have to ensure reduction of number of people pretending to be gay to claim asylum?" Sexual orientation makes up about 2% of successful asylum claims. That number has been the same for a very long time, so even though it may have become a lot more popular as a claim criteria, there is no evidence that those fraudulent claims are successful. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is it possible that your assumption that fraud did not happen in bigger scale is completely wrong? Yes or No? My answer will be the same. Yes it's possible. And whether or not I'm wrong will depend on evidence. But as yet there isn't any. Why does a lack of evidence not bother you? Whether or not I'm wrong will also depend on evidence. I haven't found any evidence that I am wrong yet. You don't see the fallacy with your argument here?. 🤣🤣🤣 By that logic, if I can't prove that the vast majority of men aren't sexual abusers, then the vast majority of men must must be sexual abusers. See the fallacy there? Possibility isn't evidence. Nobody is saying that fraud doesn't happen - the BBC documentary shows it does. The jump you are making is going from "some cases exist" to "it's obviously endemic". 🤣🤣🤣 You are also making a jump that you pretend like you are not making. We don't have evidence to prove categorically that fraud being widespread. There isn't evidence to prove categorically that it doesn't happen either. These lawyers are running a business. Considering how confident they are about the answers you have to give to scam the system, I think the probability of this being more widespread and they have done it for much longer to reach this point. You personally believe that it doesn't happen, which is fair. But your opinion on this isn't any more rational than mine." Yup, they are running a business and I guarantee you it isn't No Win No Fee. They get paid whether or not the asylum claim is successful. Confidence is required to convince the mark that their money is being well spent, but it means nothing when it comes to the assessing a claim. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is it possible that your assumption that fraud did not happen in bigger scale is completely wrong? Yes or No? My answer will be the same. Yes it's possible. And whether or not I'm wrong will depend on evidence. But as yet there isn't any. Why does a lack of evidence not bother you? Whether or not I'm wrong will also depend on evidence. I haven't found any evidence that I am wrong yet. You don't see the fallacy with your argument here?. 🤣🤣🤣 By that logic, if I can't prove that the vast majority of men aren't sexual abusers, then the vast majority of men must must be sexual abusers. See the fallacy there? Possibility isn't evidence. Nobody is saying that fraud doesn't happen - the BBC documentary shows it does. The jump you are making is going from "some cases exist" to "it's obviously endemic". 🤣🤣🤣 You are also making a jump that you pretend like you are not making. We don't have evidence to prove categorically that fraud being widespread. There isn't evidence to prove categorically that it doesn't happen either. These lawyers are running a business. Considering how confident they are about the answers you have to give to scam the system, I think the probability of this being more widespread and they have done it for much longer to reach this point. You personally believe that it doesn't happen, which is fair. But your opinion on this isn't any more rational than mine. Yup, they are running a business and I guarantee you it isn't No Win No Fee. They get paid whether or not the asylum claim is successful. Confidence is required to convince the mark that their money is being well spent, but it means nothing when it comes to the assessing a claim." But we know that they have made successful fake claims. They have a well oiled fraudulent machinery. You don't build it just like that. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Insurance is between a company and an individual. When frauds increase, insurance prices go up. There is no defense mechanism in the asylum system. So you don't want to abolish the concept of insurance even though it's imperfect. Great. What about the imperfect public systems that don't "price adjust" - courts, police, healthcare, etc. Get rid of them or accept the imperfections? Claiming is that the asylum system is totally undefended is cobblers. The process consists of multiple interviews and consistency checks, at requirement to meet specific legal criteria, country-of-origin evidence,appeals processes which cut both ways. Not infallible but certainly not undefended. Those are issues which can be improved on and worked around, which the insurance companies for example already do. What suggestion do you have to ensure reduction of number of people pretending to be gay to claim asylum? Sexual orientation makes up about 2% of successful asylum claims. That number has been the same for a very long time, so even though it may have become a lot more popular as a claim criteria, there is no evidence that those fraudulent claims are successful." Where did you get that number from? Source? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But we know that they have made successful fake claims. They have a well oiled fraudulent machinery. You don't build it just like that." If you've got the data to prove that, then share it. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Insurance is between a company and an individual. When frauds increase, insurance prices go up. There is no defense mechanism in the asylum system. So you don't want to abolish the concept of insurance even though it's imperfect. Great. What about the imperfect public systems that don't "price adjust" - courts, police, healthcare, etc. Get rid of them or accept the imperfections? Claiming is that the asylum system is totally undefended is cobblers. The process consists of multiple interviews and consistency checks, at requirement to meet specific legal criteria, country-of-origin evidence,appeals processes which cut both ways. Not infallible but certainly not undefended. Those are issues which can be improved on and worked around, which the insurance companies for example already do. What suggestion do you have to ensure reduction of number of people pretending to be gay to claim asylum? Sexual orientation makes up about 2% of successful asylum claims. That number has been the same for a very long time, so even though it may have become a lot more popular as a claim criteria, there is no evidence that those fraudulent claims are successful. Where did you get that number from? Source?" The Home Office Immigration System Statistics data tables. Check them out | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But we know that they have made successful fake claims. They have a well oiled fraudulent machinery. You don't build it just like that. If you've got the data to prove that, then share it." The investigations prove that they have a well oiled machinery. If you have data to prove that's the case, then share it | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But we know that they have made successful fake claims. They have a well oiled fraudulent machinery. You don't build it just like that. If you've got the data to prove that, then share it. The investigations prove that they have a well oiled machinery. If you have data to prove that's the case, then share it "So you don't have the data. Got it. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Insurance is between a company and an individual. When frauds increase, insurance prices go up. There is no defense mechanism in the asylum system. So you don't want to abolish the concept of insurance even though it's imperfect. Great. What about the imperfect public systems that don't "price adjust" - courts, police, healthcare, etc. Get rid of them or accept the imperfections? Claiming is that the asylum system is totally undefended is cobblers. The process consists of multiple interviews and consistency checks, at requirement to meet specific legal criteria, country-of-origin evidence,appeals processes which cut both ways. Not infallible but certainly not undefended. Those are issues which can be improved on and worked around, which the insurance companies for example already do. What suggestion do you have to ensure reduction of number of people pretending to be gay to claim asylum? Sexual orientation makes up about 2% of successful asylum claims. That number has been the same for a very long time, so even though it may have become a lot more popular as a claim criteria, there is no evidence that those fraudulent claims are successful. Where did you get that number from? Source? The Home Office Immigration System Statistics data tables. Check them out" It goes only as far back as 2015. I wouldn't be surprised it was already the case. Suella Braverman said in 2020 that this was happening and was asked to shut up because there was no evidence. Of course, the home office that gets cheated will also publish evidence that they are being taken for a ride. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But we know that they have made successful fake claims. They have a well oiled fraudulent machinery. You don't build it just like that. If you've got the data to prove that, then share it. The investigations prove that they have a well oiled machinery. If you have data to prove that's the case, then share it
So you don't have the data. Got it."And you don't have data either. Got it | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It goes only as far back as 2015. I wouldn't be surprised it was already the case. Suella Braverman said in 2020 that this was happening and was asked to shut up because there was no evidence. Of course, the home office that gets cheated will also publish evidence that they are being taken for a ride." Asking people to shut up because they make claims without evidence is pretty normal. If you're now claiming that the Home Office must be lying in its datasets because the numbers don't support your assumption, then there isn't really any point in continuing. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The claim is yours, not mine. The onus of proof is on you to show you are right, not for me to prove you are wrong. That's the kind of backwards logic that people who believe in creationism use." You are also making a claim. It doesn't have any evidence. Creationism makes a claim that empiricism theoretically cannot be used to prove. Your claim can theoretically be reasonably proven by empiricism. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It goes only as far back as 2015. I wouldn't be surprised it was already the case. Suella Braverman said in 2020 that this was happening and was asked to shut up because there was no evidence. Of course, the home office that gets cheated will also publish evidence that they are being taken for a ride. Asking people to shut up because they make claims without evidence is pretty normal. If you're now claiming that the Home Office must be lying in its datasets because the numbers don't support your assumption, then there isn't really any point in continuing. " Only for her point to be proven later. So we have a home office that has been making mistakes. No one else has access to these documents. Basically any evidence that you need to prove the issue of fraud is within the control of a government office that has been defrauded. Your argument against it is that we need more evidence after the BBC did an operation to find evidence? It might make sense inside your mind. But don't be surprised if the majority see the lunacy behind the asylum framework and end up voting for Farage. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The claim is yours, not mine. The onus of proof is on you to show you are right, not for me to prove you are wrong. That's the kind of backwards logic that people who believe in creationism use. You are also making a claim. It doesn't have any evidence. Creationism makes a claim that empiricism theoretically cannot be used to prove. Your claim can theoretically be reasonably proven by empiricism." Dude, I'm challenging you on something which you insist is true but that you have zero evidence for - and when I give you data that you don't like you claim it's somehow falsified. It's really not my job to change your mind. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It goes only as far back as 2015. I wouldn't be surprised it was already the case. Suella Braverman said in 2020 that this was happening and was asked to shut up because there was no evidence. Of course, the home office that gets cheated will also publish evidence that they are being taken for a ride. Asking people to shut up because they make claims without evidence is pretty normal. If you're now claiming that the Home Office must be lying in its datasets because the numbers don't support your assumption, then there isn't really any point in continuing. Only for her point to be proven later. So we have a home office that has been making mistakes. No one else has access to these documents. Basically any evidence that you need to prove the issue of fraud is within the control of a government office that has been defrauded. Your argument against it is that we need more evidence after the BBC did an operation to find evidence? It might make sense inside your mind. But don't be surprised if the majority see the lunacy behind the asylum framework and end up voting for Farage." Ah... So you've created a theory which is unfalsifiable because any evidence to the contrary must be lies - and you're hanging your hat on having enough fact deniers along for the ride that you can install Slippery Nigel as leader. Sounds dreamy | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The claim is yours, not mine. The onus of proof is on you to show you are right, not for me to prove you are wrong. That's the kind of backwards logic that people who believe in creationism use. You are also making a claim. It doesn't have any evidence. Creationism makes a claim that empiricism theoretically cannot be used to prove. Your claim can theoretically be reasonably proven by empiricism. Dude, I'm challenging you on something which you insist is true but that you have zero evidence for - and when I give you data that you don't like you claim it's somehow falsified. It's really not my job to change your mind." You don't have any evidence either. The data you gave is the number of people who claim asylum based on sexuality. It doesn't say anything about how fraudulent they are. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It goes only as far back as 2015. I wouldn't be surprised it was already the case. Suella Braverman said in 2020 that this was happening and was asked to shut up because there was no evidence. Of course, the home office that gets cheated will also publish evidence that they are being taken for a ride. Asking people to shut up because they make claims without evidence is pretty normal. If you're now claiming that the Home Office must be lying in its datasets because the numbers don't support your assumption, then there isn't really any point in continuing. Only for her point to be proven later. So we have a home office that has been making mistakes. No one else has access to these documents. Basically any evidence that you need to prove the issue of fraud is within the control of a government office that has been defrauded. Your argument against it is that we need more evidence after the BBC did an operation to find evidence? It might make sense inside your mind. But don't be surprised if the majority see the lunacy behind the asylum framework and end up voting for Farage. Ah... So you've created a theory which is unfalsifiable because any evidence to the contrary must be lies - and you're hanging your hat on having enough fact deniers along for the ride that you can install Slippery Nigel as leader. Sounds dreamy " I didn't create a theory that's unfalsifiable. Both my opinion and your opinion are theoretically verifiable using empiricism, unlike creationism which by theory doesn't fit within empiricism. The word "fact" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here  | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I didn't create a theory that's unfalsifiable. Both my opinion and your opinion are theoretically verifiable using empiricism, unlike creationism which by theory doesn't fit within empiricism. The word "fact" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here "You might want to look up what Empiricism is - it"s the forming of beliefs based on observable, testable evidence and being willing to change your view when new evidence contradicts it. You fail on both counts. What you have is dogmatism. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I didn't create a theory that's unfalsifiable. Both my opinion and your opinion are theoretically verifiable using empiricism, unlike creationism which by theory doesn't fit within empiricism. The word "fact" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here
You might want to look up what Empiricism is - it"s the forming of beliefs based on observable, testable evidence and being willing to change your view when new evidence contradicts it. You fail on both counts. What you have is dogmatism."I have been reading philosophy for the last four years. I know what empiricism is and I understand the limits of empiricism and rationalism. I didn't fail on any counts because you didn't show me any evidence at all. Just showing some unrelated numbers and pretending like it's "evidence" for what you claim is frankly, an insult to Aristotle himself | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You might want to look up what Empiricism is - it"s the forming of beliefs based on observable, testable evidence and being willing to change your view when new evidence contradicts it. You fail on both counts. What you have is dogmatism. I have been reading philosophy for the last four years. I know what empiricism is and I understand the limits of empiricism and rationalism. I didn't fail on any counts because you didn't show me any evidence at all. Just showing some unrelated numbers and pretending like it's "evidence" for what you claim is frankly, an insult to Aristotle himself "Guys. Stop flirting, it's past midnight already. You don't live too far from each other; get a room and come back in the morning with smiles on your faces! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You might want to look up what Empiricism is - it"s the forming of beliefs based on observable, testable evidence and being willing to change your view when new evidence contradicts it. You fail on both counts. What you have is dogmatism. I have been reading philosophy for the last four years. I know what empiricism is and I understand the limits of empiricism and rationalism. I didn't fail on any counts because you didn't show me any evidence at all. Just showing some unrelated numbers and pretending like it's "evidence" for what you claim is frankly, an insult to Aristotle himself
Guys. Stop flirting, it's past midnight already. You don't live too far from each other; get a room and come back in the morning with smiles on your faces!" | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I didn't create a theory that's unfalsifiable. Both my opinion and your opinion are theoretically verifiable using empiricism, unlike creationism which by theory doesn't fit within empiricism. The word "fact" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here
You might want to look up what Empiricism is - it"s the forming of beliefs based on observable, testable evidence and being willing to change your view when new evidence contradicts it. You fail on both counts. What you have is dogmatism.
I have been reading philosophy for the last four years. I know what empiricism is and I understand the limits of empiricism and rationalism. I didn't fail on any counts because you didn't show me any evidence at all. Just showing some unrelated numbers and pretending like it's "evidence" for what you claim is frankly, an insult to Aristotle himself "So you claim to know what Empiricism is - and then describe something which is the exact opposite. 🤣🤣🤣🤣. OK, lady. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"OK, lady." And we've finally got to personal insults. That took longer than usual. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"OK, lady. And we've finally got to personal insults. That took longer than usual." How is that an insult? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"OK, lady." "And we've finally got to personal insults. That took longer than usual." "How is that an insult?" He's clearly a man, and you've chosen to address him with "OK, lady". You're clearly attempting to belittle him by addressing him as a female. It's clear that in your head females are lesser than males, so you're using it as an insult. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"OK, lady. And we've finally got to personal insults. That took longer than usual. How is that an insult? He's clearly a man, and you've chosen to address him with "OK, lady". You're clearly attempting to belittle him by addressing him as a female. It's clear that in your head females are lesser than males, so you're using it as an insult." Assume much? 🤣🤣🤣 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I didn't create a theory that's unfalsifiable. Both my opinion and your opinion are theoretically verifiable using empiricism, unlike creationism which by theory doesn't fit within empiricism. The word "fact" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here
You might want to look up what Empiricism is - it"s the forming of beliefs based on observable, testable evidence and being willing to change your view when new evidence contradicts it. You fail on both counts. What you have is dogmatism.
I have been reading philosophy for the last four years. I know what empiricism is and I understand the limits of empiricism and rationalism. I didn't fail on any counts because you didn't show me any evidence at all. Just showing some unrelated numbers and pretending like it's "evidence" for what you claim is frankly, an insult to Aristotle himself
So you claim to know what Empiricism is - and then describe something which is the exact opposite. 🤣🤣🤣🤣. OK, lady."Keeping aside that lame attempt at insult, where exactly is your "empirical" evidence that the 2% of asylum seekers who applied on the basis of sexuality are really gay? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"OK, lady." "And we've finally got to personal insults. That took longer than usual." "How is that an insult?" "He's clearly a man, and you've chosen to address him with "OK, lady". You're clearly attempting to belittle him by addressing him as a female. It's clear that in your head females are lesser than males, so you're using it as an insult." "Assume much?" I see you haven't denied it. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"OK, lady. And we've finally got to personal insults. That took longer than usual. How is that an insult? He's clearly a man, and you've chosen to address him with "OK, lady". You're clearly attempting to belittle him by addressing him as a female. It's clear that in your head females are lesser than males, so you're using it as an insult. Assume much? I see you haven't denied it." You believe whatever you want to believe 😏 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"OK, lady." "And we've finally got to personal insults. That took longer than usual." "How is that an insult?" "He's clearly a man, and you've chosen to address him with "OK, lady". You're clearly attempting to belittle him by addressing him as a female. It's clear that in your head females are lesser than males, so you're using it as an insult." "Assume much?" "I see you haven't denied it." "You believe whatever you want to believe" I gave you another opportunity, and you've still not denied it. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"OK, lady. And we've finally got to personal insults. That took longer than usual. How is that an insult? He's clearly a man, and you've chosen to address him with "OK, lady". You're clearly attempting to belittle him by addressing him as a female. It's clear that in your head females are lesser than males, so you're using it as an insult. Assume much? I see you haven't denied it. You believe whatever you want to believe I gave you another opportunity, and you've still not denied it." Oh, you think I'm answerable to you? That's funny. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"OK, lady." "And we've finally got to personal insults. That took longer than usual." "How is that an insult?" "He's clearly a man, and you've chosen to address him with "OK, lady". You're clearly attempting to belittle him by addressing him as a female. It's clear that in your head females are lesser than males, so you're using it as an insult." "Assume much?" "I see you haven't denied it." "You believe whatever you want to believe" "I gave you another opportunity, and you've still not denied it." "Oh, you think I'm answerable to you?" No, I think that you've been caught out and you're desperately trying to deflect in the hope that the criticism will go away. It's clear to everyone here that you intended it as an insult. The nature of that insult, and your refusal to accept responsibility tells us what sort of person you are. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"OK, lady xxx" Resorting to personal insults just shows that you have run out of logical arguments to put to the other person. Most people would just stop at that point. The fact that you can't let it go and have to resort to insults just to get the last word in says much about what sort of person you are. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"OK, lady xxx Resorting to personal insults just shows that you have run out of logical arguments to put to the other person. Most people would just stop at that point. The fact that you can't let it go and have to resort to insults just to get the last word in says much about what sort of person you are." If you actually read the thread instead of clutching pearls, you'd see that it wasn't me who ran out of logical arguments. When someone uses evasion tactics like burden shifting, conspiracy theories and appeals to ignorance then it's clear they don't really have an argument and it's not worth continuing. If OK Lady triggers you so badly then I suggest you never set foot in a New York cab. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"OK, lady xxx Resorting to personal insults just shows that you have run out of logical arguments to put to the other person. Most people would just stop at that point. The fact that you can't let it go and have to resort to insults just to get the last word in says much about what sort of person you are. If you actually read the thread instead of clutching pearls, you'd see that it wasn't me who ran out of logical arguments. When someone uses evasion tactics like burden shifting, conspiracy theories and appeals to ignorance then it's clear they don't really have an argument and it's not worth continuing. If OK Lady triggers you so badly then I suggest you never set foot in a New York cab." Still waiting for "empirical" evidence for your claim Just because you are unable to handle certain logical fallacies in your argument, it doesn't mean the other person is a "conspiracy theorist". About "Ok, lady", it is was clearly a personal insult and you just proved that you are a misogynist. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"OK, lady xxx" "Resorting to personal insults just shows that you have run out of logical arguments to put to the other person. Most people would just stop at that point. The fact that you can't let it go and have to resort to insults just to get the last word in says much about what sort of person you are." "If you actually read the thread instead of clutching pearls, you'd see that it wasn't me who ran out of logical arguments." I have read the whole thread, and I see you making statements with no evidence, and then criticising the other guy for not providing evidence. When that tactic didn't work, you came out with "OK, lady". "When someone uses evasion tactics like burden shifting, conspiracy theories and appeals to ignorance then it's clear they don't really have an argument and it's not worth continuing." How about when someone uses evasion tactics like refusing to address the issue, casting aspersions, and then ad hominem attacks? "If OK Lady triggers you so badly then I suggest you never set foot in a New York cab." I didn't say I was triggered. I just pointed out that you'd resorted to insults. If people pointing out your shortcomings triggers you so badly, you might want to stay out of the Politics forum. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
