Sure I would, because it's statistically true anyway. An outlier is an outlier.
And the existence of an outlier does not preclude a general rule, and vice versa.
Which means that, in our extended metaphor, not only should you not eat anything from the bowl, but you should kill the jackass that offered it to you in the first place.
It is if your country is being strained by the increase in population while your indigenous/citizen populations are being propagandised to not reproduce. Even if every immigrant were legal and law-abiding, it's still a negative outcome being enacted on the general population against their will. Most people aren't just not voting for this, but actively against it.
All immigration is warfare.
That's silly. I'm a legal immigrant and I'm not an agent of warfare.
Even IF one of the M&Ms isn't poisoned, I still wouldn't eat any.
But you wouldn't claim something false like that ALL the M&Ms are poisoned.
I'd claim that it's enough that I don't care how many are poisoned. It's too many to risk eating any.
It might as well be all of them.
Sure I would, because it's statistically true anyway. An outlier is an outlier.
And the existence of an outlier does not preclude a general rule, and vice versa.
Which means that, in our extended metaphor, not only should you not eat anything from the bowl, but you should kill the jackass that offered it to you in the first place.
But I would still say I don't want this brown M&M in my bowl of white M&Ms.
Youre the exception not the rule
Perhaps, but not ALL immigration is warfare.
It is if your country is being strained by the increase in population while your indigenous/citizen populations are being propagandised to not reproduce. Even if every immigrant were legal and law-abiding, it's still a negative outcome being enacted on the general population against their will. Most people aren't just not voting for this, but actively against it.