[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, large numbers of Muslims are in Bosnia-Herzegovina because of ethnic nationalists.

I doubt that, but the violence against Muslims was due to ethnic nationalists.

[Noob]

It was sarcasm.

violence against Muslims was due to ethnic nationalists.

Why is that a bad thing? The Muslim Ottoman Empire was perfectly happy to oppress and impale Southeastern Europeans with large sharp sticks put through their anuses which went up through the body to maintain its hegemony in the Balkans.

[Pants-of-dog]

Why is that a bad thing? The Muslim Ottoman Empire was perfectly happy to oppress and impale Southeastern Europeans with large sharp sticks through their anuses to maintain its hegemony in the Balkans.

Do you have anything to say about multiculturalism?

[Noob]

I've already said it all. Thanks.

[Pants-of-dog]

Have a good day, Noob.

I look forward to discussing mass immigration with you once you have a clear definition of it.

[Noob]

I think that Rei Murasame provided a perfectly good definition of mass immigration, but you dismissed it like you do with everything else. You seem to think it needs to be quantified to be defined, and it doesn't. You don't consider there to be an upper limit on migration from the third world to the developed world, or a limit on a 'multicultural society' (since it's an endless goal that can never be realised) so even if the term did need to be quantified it wouldn't be much use doing that because you would dismiss it and claim that it isn't an issue or that being against the idea itself is futile, just like you have done in the past and continue to do so for much of what you don't like or can't be bothered with.

Have a nice day.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think that Rei Murasame provided a perfectly good definition of mass immigration, but you dismissed it like you do with everything else.

As I said, there are two issues I have with her definition:

1. It is unquantified, which means that if a single immigrant meets whatever other criteria there is, then that one immigrant counts as "mass immigration", which is illogical since "mass" means " a lot of".

2. It is defined by its effect: i.e. it expands the pool of labour for jobs that would be classified as NS-SEC occupational code 5 (Semi-routine manual and service occupations), 6 (Routine manual and service occupations), and sometimes also 2 (Clerical and intermediate occupations). This means that a radically large and influential influx of people from another culture would not be considered mass immigration if they all came over as entrepreneurs or bourgeoisie or academics.

You seem to think it needs to be quantified to be defined, and it doesn't.

Why does it not need to be quantified?

You don't consider there to be an upper limit on migration from the third world to the developed world, or a limit on a 'multicultural society' (since it's an endless goal that can never be realised) so even if the term did need to be quantified it wouldn't be much use doing that because you would dismiss it and claim that it isn't an issue or that being against the idea itself is futile, just like you have done in the past and continue to do so for much of what you don't like or can't be bothered with.

This is all about me and my motives, so I hope you understand why I am not addressing it.

Have a nice day.

You too, or a nice evening, if that is the case in your time zone.

[Rei Murasame]

If you are unable to quantify it in any rational manner, [...]

Pants-of-Dog is confirmed as not being a STEM person.

[Istanbuller]

What is a stem person thing?

[Pants-of-dog]

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.

Rei, do you have any rebuttals to my arguments? Specifically, my criticisms of your definition of mass immigration.

[The Sabbaticus]

^ waste of time.

Mass-immigration is quantifiable by country of origin and number of immigrants. Hundreds annually is typically a safe number. Thousands annually is tantamount to mass immigration. Also, treaty obligations and right to family life stipulations almost always ensure that not just one person emigrates.

[layman]

Pretty sure pants said a while back that large scale immigration is probably not suitable for Europe anyway.

[Pants-of-dog]

^ waste of time.

Mass-immigration is quantifiable by country of origin and number of immigrants.

Can you please expand on this?

Hundreds annually is typically a safe number. Thousands annually is tantamount to mass immigration. Also, treaty obligations and right to family life stipulations almost always ensure that not just one person emigrates.

Thousands of Europeans move to China each year to work. Would you consider this an example of mass immigration? Is China's culture threatened?

[The Sabbaticus]

Weak argument in light of the numbers involved: annual immigration rate, existing immigrant populations, proportion to native population, etc. And once again the nature of the legal framework that acts as a superstructure for the flow of immigrants.

[Pants-of-dog]

Weak argument in light of the numbers involved: annual immigration rate, existing immigrant populations, proportion to native population, etc.

Thank you for expanding on the criteria involved in determining how much immigration is "mass immigration".

So, a country with a high annual immigration rate, large existing immigrant populations, and a large proportion to native population would have mass immigration, while countries that are missing one of these criteria do not?

And once again the nature of the legal framework that acts as a superstructure for the flow of immigrants.

Can you please expand on this?

[The Sabbaticus]

Both are examples of mass-immigration. But the comparison to China is weak, same if you were to compare mass-immigration to the petro-Arab Gulf states, USA and Russian Federation.

[Pants-of-dog]

Both are examples of mass-immigration.

How so? Do you only need one of these three criteria to be a country with mass immigration?

Also, what is a high annual immigration rate? Does the number of immigrants depend on what kind of jobs they will be doing?

[Strata]

Oh gosh pants, you are really hopeless.

Maybe you are just trolling. I hope pants you are just joking and pulling our legs here. Like one day you will come out and say. "Hey, me, online here. It was just a joke! I was trolling with all ya!" And we will all have a good laugh then.

Right Pants, you are going to do that dawg ....... right?

It's just all a joke, it can't be real.

[Pants-of-dog]

Where in Canada do you live?

[Strata]

Wtf, I'm not telling you where I live, who the hell you think you are? Asking me such a question. pff....