Muslims make up 5% of the population, and albeit increasing - both from immigrantion and them getting relatively more childeren, it's quite far from being the majority. Something which is highly unlikely because over time a lot of Muslims tend to get areligious and just don't belief anything.
1/3 of the immigrants is Muslim. You can argue it might increase but with 1/3 their not on track to be come the majority.
We hate both extremes from America. The far left totally went overboard culturally with everything they do and think. And the other extreme part is the extremely religious conservative part. Because we think the religion of one, shouldn't restrict the freedom of someone else. A rule we also struggle with ourself ironically from time to time.
This is a bullshit headline and post. It's a small group of youngsters protesting and making a bit of trouble. It child's play. Regardless if you agree or not. Litterly 30-40 people and one who decided to fuck with the police at the wrong moment, assuming there wouldn't reprecursions because of the short distance (which I think shouldn't be done in this case but OK). In the Netherlands we aren't used to any kind of protest. So he used it as a hyperbole.
Besides Scientific papers, next to none as I am far from an expert. I've this side job hussle were I have to read and correct references for journals/papers/thesises/dissertations till I finished my own. So I read/saw a bizare amount of random papers the last 2,5 years, the interesting stuff i tend to read a little longer and check out :)
it's the main reason why the nordic's/vikings flourished, suddenly the land was more fertile, and nice to live there. But the climate swing was rather local on northern europe. Similair nowadays the north of africa gets more rain and fertility (which is a ~70 year cycle for example), but the east of africa gets less rain more drier.
To some degree he's right. It's often a bit sad to hear people talking in terms of beta and alpha. It's rather one dimensional and contrains almost no associate value's. That's why I approve of the insult cuck. Because some weird people adore the idea, and by ridulising and reintroducing the insult, you also signal an associated - traditional- value set, and value's of which I can only approve.
There's a difference between welfare, and having certain support for things such as housing/insurance. Wellfare you get without work.
I do work and earn my money. As a student, i can't (and morally it wouldn't be okay) ask for welfare. But you get certain tax breaks, if your income in low, the tax breaks are higher. And supports are related to income aswell in some cases, so that they decrease the higher your income is.
There's a difference between welfare and support. I do work. The support/allowence is something actually almost everybody gets, but it's related to income. Normal students have 0 income, and do not get welware because they study, and inorder to get welfare you need to be able and looking for a job.
I do earn money, by working, more then someone on welfare would get. My point was that the marginal rate of effective income, on the lower end of income is too small. Because the government wanted increase the living standard of the very poorer. But therefor creating a not the wellfare trap, but something similair for the minimum wage. Once you earn more, I would work less if i was on minimum wage. Up and till you earn much much more. It ends at roughly 45k/year and is very significant around 20-35k/year, I would just work less and expand my skill, start a buisness with potential higher futher pay-off etc. Just because it's not rewarding to earn more. There has been a spot for some time, where if you earn more, you would end up with less money. Now it's almost flat. But that's ridiculous imo.
I am in my early twenties, and almost everybody takes student loans (roughly 1k/month), but i've a side job were i can earn far above average income/hour, so i do not need to make this loan. The housing support and insurance is something all students get, because they make no income. I just decided that while i get the tax breaks, I'd use them up and till their maximum. It just works out very well for me, because I do not want, need nor benefit from working more, but I'd also like to calculate what works out.
Wellfare is not a loan, and we do have it, it's ~1k/month. And you do not need to pay it back and comes with a lot of obligation. I've never taken any welfare, and i do not plan to.
Minimum income if you work ~36-40 hours/week in germany is ~19k/year + like 15% additional stuff if you have a contract (like holiday pay etc.), makes it 21,5k You pay next to none taxes and you get a lot of benefits/support, ending up living with ~22-25k/year minimum.
In comparision, if you do not work in the netherlands, you get ~1,1k/month, roughly 13k/year (pay 1k back to some health care related stuff, but it's sorta tax) and a lot of benefits, ending up near 14-17k/year depending on support, from insurance to housing/child. Minimum income in the netherlands is similair to germany.
All together it's very doable for someone without work/living on minimum wage, and you have a lot less workhours, and more holidays. It's a minimum for a reason.
I am a Dutch student, I do not borrow any money. Tuition fee is 2k/year. I pay ~5,45% taxes, a little more if i can't deduct everything, but the target is to decuded everything. I work freelance (so i can pinpoint my own income), but i target to make a little under minimum income, so i get maximum in benefits, minimum in taxes, which is around 16,6k/year after cost reduction, which is under 1k taxes (offcially it's mainly to pay healthy care, but it's grouped together in taxes).
I get 3k housing support/year, and 1,3k insurance support/year. I can roughly live off 21,5k/year. Of which 2k is tuition, and 8k is rent (live in amsterdam in a nice place, but it's not cheap), 1,3k insurance (equal to the support), and 1k taxes. So that leaves me to live off 9k/year as student. I spend 6k of that. And i save roughly 3k/year. On bellow minimum wage. If i had no own capital I could get more reductions on stuff like watertax, and municiplity/garbage tax (which i didn't include, it's like 400 bucks/year idk)
It's actually ridiculous because there's no incentive to work/earn more, because all the benefits quickly decrease, and the taxes only increase, i've calculated that for every additional euro i earn, I net benefit like 15-25 cents. While up and till the point where I currently I am, it's between 88-94 cents. The difference suddenly becomes huge.
It's not over, but once the results seemed definitive i've given it low odds. It seems just a long shot to win by legal challanges, and if there's not a real strong and clear case, laywers will be very careful to make a ruling that could switch the results of the elections. So i just watch things unfold. I never actively participated, and I don't you think you should give up, trump has every right to make a legal case, let it be tested by the courts.
And if there's been systematic fraud, it will most likely be bloody well covered up and you need the best of the best to prove it, and even then it's next to impossible. Because the risks for anyone commiting fraud SHOULD be enormous and i'd like to believe people would play by the rules, fuck etiquettes though.
I belief the best situation was for trump to win by votes, and I do think this is an uphill battle.
I think it's naive to say otherwise.
Doomer here. I am highly sceptical, and give it very low odds trump will be declared winner of the election. Using this site a way to follow the movement, supporting most parts of it but not all, gained unstanding for certain stances advocated here, although in the early days it felt more accessible.
If you make "being" a doomer ban worthy you put up a way to high barricade to "enter" the movement. Instead focus on convining me (or not), by providing information and showing results of why it's likely; next to certain why trump will still win.
Be happy "others" including doomers, use this as a source of information, and trying to understand "your" side of things. Else your force others to use mainstream media to let them explain what the trump support thinks. I doubt that's desirable.
Most people start out as lurker, and test their old convictions, to the new ones presented here, and are actually open for arguments. A debate is desireable and not ban worthy if done with respect.
If you want to combat it, then...
You can argue if you want to combat it or not, but the propesition was you do. You can debate if you want to combat it or not. But if you do want to combat it, then social distancing helps most significantly.
Also you do hide from some viruses, or bacteria, and my ancestors did so aswell. That argument is totally invalid.
The thing is, the deadlier a virus, the quicker it dies out and the less likely its to reach the full population.
All of which does not apply to Corona, plus the argument is made, we will most likely quick figure a vaccine. If that's desirable given the impact, or maybe should be similar to the flu vaccine only be given to the elderly, is something you can debate upon aswell.
But the thing I highly doubt is if a society with masks is desireable. At first the impact for the spread of the virus, which is claim to combat, is nihil if so. It creates a false sense of security, and actually increases infection by improper use, and encourages the a toxic safety first culture, were demanding and heavy regulations are normalized for the slighest reduction of risks, and negative impacts and their likelyhood and severness are improperly valued. Then the atheistic aspect is also waived as it's unimportant but given the margins we talk about that alone should be enough of an argument against masks.
Exactly. This most shows way too much ignorance. The reply is decent.
Here the government has been straight up honest about masks. The literature implies it doesn't work, but even assuming it might work, but the effect is marginal and the science actually refute it as impactful meassure. But because public backlash, and populair belief, in some place it will be mandatory/adviced, not because it does work, or because the government support it, but because the public wants it, and it seems too stubborn to be confinced otherwise.
Social distancing, and avoiding gatherings/contact obviously is the best way to combat the virus.
The likelyhood of infecting someone 30m Away is nihil, given both people are static/don't move in each other's direction at any point in time. But people do move.
The vaccin is so you don't have to do the above 4.
I doubt you understand the stance of The Donald.
People being trans is fine. Encouranging people to be trans is not. Such cases should be handeld with caution.
Everybody here hopefully respects those who are, but dislikes the celebration and the culture of flaunting it. Act normal, that's already crazy enough.
No. There's a whole array of people who support Biden, and those rioting and assaulting people most likely do not even support Biden perse. Biden barely got support.
Anti-fa is much more accurate and targets the violent group better. Them supporting Biden is a facade. Just call them mobs, criminals, abusers, monsters or whatever.
Well i am Dutch, and I could call myself somewhat conservative here.
For me this implies I am very anti-revolutionary, and more precise I think the rate of change of things should be relatively small, and theres some intrinsic value to thing solely because they were done a certain. See it as a treshhold before you should change something.
To be specific, why I don't align with all the stance here, a big one is abortion. I am very pragmatic about it, especially if you are able to cancel a pregnancy early.
But I would very much root for a revaluation of family values, and I think in our society, and even more so in the US their unvalued. The praise stable families get here is wonderful.
Far left people often implicit use the argument "because it can work in very few exceptional cases we should not dismiss it, and embrace it" often leading to the most ridicule stances. Also in irony they often use "because there's very small change for something bad, let's ban/cancel it, avoid it all cost" neclecting probability. Often overreacting, Out of touch with reality, and creating a duality in feeling offended, easily to feel offended, but disproportionate in judgment if you disagree, pointing out that certain things are non issues, their over valuation of it, often turn you to diabolic monster in their mind.
Following this movement, on the donald, it created understanding for the "gun right movement" I am still not an advocate to introduce the right here, and I would most likely still feel weird with people around me carrying guns, but i gained some respect for it. I could see why the culture culture of owning one, is okay and not as harmful as portrayed.
I agree, and it's not desirable, because there's a tendancy that value's of -in this case of muslim- have a high discrepancy with ours, which leads to conflicts, or atleast frustration on both ends. Besides a certain subset of immigrants being unskilled, and not willing or able to put in the work to make things work. Which is a prerequist to succesfully become part of our society. Especially those who already were giving up within their own society, because they were unskilled or cause trouble. And then naively themself and by some lefties, thinking that they somehow will succeed here is delusional.
But there's no need to blow things out of proportion, things been worrisome the way they are.
I belief if we in western europe want to get the majority to agree on such issue, and there already been an incredible shift last 20 years, we have to confince both left and right that reality is problematic. Instead of both living in an alternate reality, were one side ignore problems, and the other sees problems that aren't there.
But there's a lot more to be said about the topic, and in generally I am not against immigrantion. Just with the notion given above. The iranian Women, who completed a master, spreaks fluent English, learned Dutch in the evening hours before she decided to flee. Because she hates the islamic rule, is areligious, and been struggling to fit in there, under the true! oppression, is more then welcome.
Same goes for those from belarus, people fleeing from Hong Kong. Mainly - because their value sets do tend to align much more with ours. It's all about value's, and being skilled imo.