He didn't say you couldn't disagree, he said you were lazily dismissing his opinion and evidence, which you did.
Now here you are arguing that no opinion is right or wrong, only opinions.
By the way, no it's not a complete cop out, it's an opportunity for further debate based on the ideas in those books.
That's not how discussion works.
But more to the point I challenged someone on their views and that was likened to denying evolution and now because I personally aren't going to read hand picked books written on the subject I must be stupid.
It's pathetic, and a complete pompus attitude to put accross.
Why wouldn’t you care what people who have given the matter considerable thought and carried out extensive research on the subject think?
Similarly, it ought to be reasonable to deduce that Bruce, having read the books, recommended them to you as a way of (a) communicating his views to you as expressed by eminent subject matter experts and (b) giving you an opportunity to expand your knowledge of the subject.
You are confusing the fact that everyone has the right to an opinion with all opinions are equally valid, which clearly they are not. Opinions based on fact and evidence, such as those in the books that you are refusing to read, usually outweigh someone’s ranty YouTube video made after a lunchtime session with like minded experts in Wetherspoons.
Let me ask you, disagreeing with an open border idea, what's wrong with that? We know that's not an isolated thought process and there is plenty out there that disagrees with it or doesn't think it's viable so what is wrong with holding that idea? After all, it generates potential negatives such as
1. Too many unskilled workers settling in one country
2. Welfare issues
3. Loss of national identity
Not to mention the impact of losing high skill workers in a country. Or the idea that it wouldn't be an open door policy so therefore immigration rules would then have to apply putting you right back in the same position you are in now.
It loses value to a country, being able to go wherever you want doesn't benefit a country in any way, unlike countries like Australia who require worth for immigration. You lose all of that.
It's a completely utopia style argument based in fantasy no matter how strongly you think about it.
So what is wrong with disagreeing with that notion? Rather than dismissive and insulting comparisons and childish name calling. Reading and learning your own viewpoint doesn't validate it any more, it's simply reading the like minded thoughts and creating an echo chamber mindset.
Open border policy isn't the answer to life's problems. It's generates its own problems as other academics have also written about.
