Oh Dear: Is there any other country in Europe where this would cause outrage ?

[sasguru]

I have assumed a breeding rate of 2 per couple you goat. I have assumed a breeding rate a bit less than is the case in the country of origin of mother/father. Now try and read before you open your damn fool mouth.

And that breeding rate remains the same over generations?

[Causus Deli]

No he did not answer questions, made a lot of spurious assumptions and made gross errors in his arithmetic. Therefore with an argument like a sieve, it was easy to pick up on his numerous mistakes.

You are becoming desperate little boy, go do your homework sonny.

[sasguru]

Come now, it's a simple point I'm making here....

[Causus Deli]

And that breeding rate remains the same over generations?

Why would the breeding rate in another country be affected by ours? Why should it not remain the same? Did you notice that in ethiopia the population has rocketed since the famines in the early 80's? Would you not think this was a good time to give up breeding, it doesn't work the same in other countries as it does in our civilised one? 42 million in 1984 to 74 million now according to my infallible sources.

[Causus Deli]

Come now, it's a simple point I'm making here....

I have made modifications and provided my sources (couldn't at the time some of us work for our money). Do you have any arguments with the figures I now provide. BTW my maths was always correct, you questioned the assumptions (infact your hero did) that is not a mathematical error or a lie. This is becoming a little ner ner ner from you and I will not reply to you anymore you have nothing to add.

[sasguru]

Why would the breeding rate in another country be affected by ours? Why should it not remain the same? Did you notice that in ethiopia the population has rocketed since the famines in the early 80's? Would you not think this was a good time to give up breeding, it doesn't work the same in other countries as it does in our civilised one? 42 million in 1984 to 74 million now according to my infallible sources.

You can't really be that dense. I'm not talking about the breeding rate in another country. I am saying that the evidence is that the breeding rate in immigrant populations falls fairly fast in their host country, eventually approaching the host country's rate. A quick search will give you that evidence or you can use the links in the previous post.

[sasguru]

[QUOTE=Causus Deli]I will not reply to you anymore [QUOTE]

Not surprised. Let's summarise this little argument.

1. First we questioned your 3.7 figure. Under pressure you have changed it to 3 - and I'll grant you provided more evidence, even if your figures are still plucked from thin air.

2. But you have totally failed to prove that the initial high birth rate is sustained over generations, which would be necessary to overwhem the indigenous population. And in fact, available studies show this not to be the case.

[Causus Deli]

You can't really be that dense. I'm not talking about the breeding rate in another country. I am saying that the evidence is that the breeding rate in immigrant populations falls fairly fast in their host country, eventually approaching the host country's rate. A quick search will give you that evidence or you can use the links in the previous post.

You are not reading are you. The breeding rate is determind by the country of importation in 40%, the breeding rate in our country for them I have set artificially low at 2 per couple so as not to confuse issues, open myself up to lying accusations. Listen, 40% are imported spouses and they determine the breeding rate as detailed in section 6 of my reference. Now if we continue to import spouses etc then the breeding rate will be determined by that country's breeding rate and not ours. They don't speaky de English and cannot understand 'keep your legs crossed love'!

[Not So Wise]

IS IT UNREASONABLE TO PUT OUR OWN FIRST?

No except it shows you have already fallen into a general mentality of "them and us" which is one of the first levels of racism.

People should be individually "judged" on how they act and what they do, gender, religion, nationality, race should be totally immaterial in classifying people

There has been much ado in this thread about foreigners claiming the benefits from the British system but really what is the difference between a foreigner who comes to this country to claim from the state and a British citizen who has been claiming since the day he turned 18 and never paid an ounce of tax or contributed anything to the country (except possibly more leeches..woops mean "kids")? To me there is none except a roll of the dice which decided where they would be born, both of are leeches, plain and simple. It really makes zero difference where they come, from what religion they might be or gender, and if it does to you then I makes you to some degree racist / xenophobic /sexists or whatever other applicable classification.

The problem is with the British system, not the foreigners. They are doing what is natural human nature, seeking the best level of living for the least effort.

The British welfare system needs to change from a potential never ending a way of life to being a helping hand to get people over the curve balls life might toss at them and boost for the poor doing poorly paid but necessary jobs.

Change that and the foreigners looking for a easy ride will go away and the country will be left with those who are here to actually work for a living

That to me is 1000% more logical that saying "our leeches should come before those foreign leeches"

[Causus Deli]

[QUOTE=sasguru][QUOTE=Causus Deli]I will not reply to you anymore

Not surprised. Let's summarise this little argument.

1. First we questioned your 3.7 figure. Under pressure you have changed it to 3 - and I'll grant you provided more evidence, even if your figures are still plucked from thin air.

2. But you have totally failed to prove that the initial high birth rate is sustained over generations, which would be necessary to overwhem the indigenous population. And in fact, available studies show this not to be the case.

I have infact show through referenced research that the breeding rate is infact 4.4, if you care to go back I took a rather conservative 3.7 and am willing to even go lower to make my point which I think is pretty clear.

The birth rate is determined by the imported country and infact is still much higher than ours in those in our country. I have reduced all numbers to way below what they actually are yet you still persist in seeing nothing in the alarming trends.

You sir are a damn fool and a childish moron.