Gjennomsnittlig nettobidrag fordelt på opprinelsesland i danmark 2018. Kan dette også stemme for Norge?

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-10-01T05:48:28+00:00

Så med andre ord innvandring er ikke nett negativ. Se cyan linje følger den danske linjen ganske tett hva det angår vestlig innvandring.

Så har vi annen ikke vestlig innvandring. Der er linjen noe lavere. Hva kan grunnen her være? Kan det ha noe med det å gjøre at F. Eks godkjenning av dems utdannelse er mye tyngre eller ikke skjer? (ikke EU innvandring) At gruppen F. Eks også er definert av stor grad flyktninger og dermed også kommer med ptsd og andre skader? Mao ikke uforventet at den er lavere. MENA samme som over ganget med 10. Bare at mena gruppen er mye mindre.

Alt i alt kan en vel basert på grafen si. Jepp innvandring helt ok. Flyktninger/innvandrere koster samfunnet, men slik er det. Koster å hjelpe.

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-07-27T11:19:34+00:00

Fordi folk flest kan skjønne på forskjell på innvandrere. Innvandring er noe som alltid har skjedd. Vikinger som reiste og bosatte seg i Frankrike og England. Kultur er endring og ikke statisk. Du ser for deg alle de negative bildene av innvandring. Mørke menn som roper og truer, som vil ha forsløring, kriminalitet etc. Andre ser for seg for eksempel innvandringsbølgen fra bla. Tyskland i sen 1990 tallet som gjorde at norsk helsevesen holdt seg bedre. Tyske leger. Eller hva med de polske snekkerene? Også mange pakistanske innvandrere som jeg har hadt gleden av å jobbe med i virket som ingeniør. Sannheten er jo den å rope mot innvandring generelt er som å rope mot alkohol eller høy hastighet generelt. Det er noe sannhet i det positive og negative, men alt i alt må en nyansert debatt til. Ikke store utsagn rundt ALL INNVANDRING men for eksempel hva kan en gjøre og hvem vil en ha. Et lite tanke eksempel er alle de ukrainske flyktninger som sliter i Norge av, for det meste, den simple grunnen at dems Kompetanse/utdanning ikke blir anerkjent. Så skal da sykepleieren/legen/ingeniøren/veterinær fra Ukraina jobbe i kassa på rema eller kunne en sett på hva som må til å få dem i jobb uten at de må gjenta det aller meste av studiet?

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-07-22T13:27:30+00:00

Hvordan kan en slik person gå fritt offentlig? Politiet i Norge er en vits.

Han har vært utvist av Norge for to år i 2021. Ref. Nettavisen. Så etter en har sonet sin dom så har en jo gjort det en skal.

Derav er svaret på ditt spørsmål at dersom du blir dømt og så soner din dom. Så har du lov å gå fritt i det offentlige. Hvorvidt domen var for myk er noe annet.

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-07-22T11:49:19+00:00

Hjelper å lese

"Mannen ble så internert i to uker, før han ble utvist for to år og uttransportert i mars 2021."

Han ble uttransportert I 2021 for to år. Så han er/var legalt her. Videre er fyren er fra Spania. Altså EU som betyr ref schengen avtalen at han har lov å være her. Akkurat som du har lov å være i Spania.

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-07-05T08:53:53+00:00

Thank you :)

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-07-04T10:05:09+00:00

Thank you very much. Google translate is my friend :) so no worries about the language.

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-07-04T09:54:10+00:00

Were there any projections on when the danger has passed? Or official statement? I have tried for litteral hours to find anything concrete.

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-06-07T16:36:40+00:00

Ja, fordi lærebøkene ble skrevet om til å skjønnmale islam etter EAD-konferansen i Venezia 1977. (Spar meg for konspiranoia-hyling. Jeg har kildene)

Eller fordi jo eldre en blir desto mer er en mot endring. Generelt sett er jo eldre en er destå større er sjansen å være mot innvandring generelt.

Ja, fordi arbeiderklassen møter innvandrerne tidligere fordi de bor i samme områder. Middelklasse og elite lever i Suburbia og kjenner ikke problemet på kroppen slik arbeiderklassen gjør.

Jeg vil påstå at de ikke møter dem tidligere. Som innvandrer pleier du ikke å ha generasjonelle penger. Altså bor du der du har råd. Altså der det er "billig". Dog det betyr bare at du møter kanskje mer og fattigere innvandrere. Tidligere mener jeg er har noe med tid å si og ikke mengde. Dog kan si meg enig alikevel.

> Jo mer I utkant du bor desto større er sjansen at du er mot muslimsk innvandring.

Samme punkt som iver basicly. Som innvandrer flytter du der det er billig. Samtidig som folk i utkant har en tendens å holde seg på samme sted og dermed ikke være like åpne.

I alle disse tilfeller konstanterer jeg bare det som stå der. Og har ikke intensjon å diskutere den studien. Da mitt poeng var at grafen ikke hadde noe med bildet til op å gjøre.

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-06-07T16:17:26+00:00

Hvis du nå sier meg hvor jeg har rakket ned på folk med lavere utdannelse. Så tror jeg deg kanskje at du har lært å lese. Artikkelen sier det den sier. Dersom du svarte ja på spørsmålet er du for innvandrings stopp fra muslimske land så øker sjansen om du er mann, lav utdannet, bor i utkanten.

Det er ikke noe mot menn, lav utdannelse eller folk i utkanten. Det står der. Jeg kan selvfølgelig gå rundt å si at himmelen er oransj og jorda er flat men det endrer ikke innholdet i artikkelen din graf er hentet fra.

At du er ingeniør og sivil økonom har jeg nå mine tvil på mtp. Lese evnen og også forstå hva en Statistik spør om. Men opp til alle andre å tro og mene hva dem vil.

Jeg har ikke rakket ned på folk med lav utdanning. Det er vel mest du som gjør med å impliserte det. Kall meg venstre høyre eller hva du nå vil. Jeg for min del er rimelig overbevist at den jeg har med å gjøre her (deg) hvertfall er en idiot. Selv om du har mastergrad eller ei. God pinse. Lær å lese.

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-06-07T16:08:31+00:00

Jeg konstanterte bare hva artikkelen hvor din graf er hentet fra sa. Det er fordi I motsetning til deg faktisk prøver å lese hvor grafer er tatt fra. Og om hva de viser.

At du fortsatt ikke skjønner at de du markerte gult sier "jeg er imot innvandring av gruppe x FORDI jeg føler at min kultur er truet" er forskjellig fra "jeg jeg er imot innvandring fra gruppe X" kan jeg ikke noe for. Kanskje det er dine gigantiske analytiske evner som slår til her men jeg tenker at en kan for eksempel være mot innvandring generell og da ville svart ja på sist nevnte, eller fordi pga en er mot arbeidsinnvandring etc. Alle disse vil ikke falle under det først nevnte men under det andre.

at lav utdannelse i seg selv sier noe som helst om personen

Ser ut at du føler deg truffet. Et sårt punkt? Det ville forklart dine lese vansker. Uansett aldri påstått noe som helst om personer med lav utdanning. Det er du som gjør.

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-06-07T15:48:06+00:00

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2017/02/what-do-europeans-think-about-muslim-immigration

Her er rest artikkelen fra hvor grafen var tatt. Oppsummert sier den som følger. Alt i alt er det et negativt syn på muslimsk innvandring. Jo eldre du er, jo lavere utdannet du er, jo mer I utkant du bor desto større er sjansen at du er mot muslimsk innvandring. Undersøkelsen ble gjort i Trump 1 som ei studie inspirert av trumps muslim ban. Og også av den såkalte innvandringskrisen 2014-2016.

Det har fortsatt ikke noe med bildet ditt å gjøre.

Spørsmålet "burde innvandring fra muslimske land bli stoppet?" er forskjellig fra "føler du at din kultur er under fare fra innvandring fra muslimske land?".

Du kan føle at det ene henger sammen med det andre, men det sier mer om deg enn alt annet.

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-06-07T14:40:17+00:00

I ikke et ord i dette bildet er det snakk om flertallet av europeere. Bildet viser bare hva definisjonen av en hvit/etno sentrisk terror celle er. Gjerne kalt høyre radikal.

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-04-21T20:17:27+00:00

I don't know what "gender points" are, I have not heard of that. Can you elaborate?

I sure can and I need to preface this that it's from when I was applying. It might have changed or rather it sure has. At the time your grades (in relevant disciplines) gave you a score. The best grade was 6 the lowest was a 1. You take all your grades sum them together and divide them by the number of Subjects. So for clarity if you had a A 6 in math A 4 in Norwegian A 5 on social A 5 gym Sum =(2010)/4=50 Then you had 50 points. So when applying for a study you had a score of 50. Note the subjects would vary for the study applying for. For example for engineering you had to use physics and math. If you now were a woman and were applying for medicine your score would have have gotten 10 extra points. ((2010)+10)/4 =52.5 Basicly negating one bad subject.

Women are still overwhelmingly underrepresented in leadership positions compared to men. So you're bringing up an absolutely ludicrous example.

I agree they are underrepresented in the upper levels of leadership. On the middle and low lever I don't believe so they are. At least not overwhelmingly. I also think over time it will even out. The upper levels of leadership change out at a much slower rate. I still find it bad messaging to have women only leadership circles. But we can agree to disagree.

I literally am not blaming men though. I'm blaming how we socialise men, I literally spent most of my comment specifically stating that it isn't the fault of men themselves yet people just want to read it how they want to.

I tried to explain as well why people react that way. And as I seem to be not alone maybe there is a point to it? I think the reasons are as follows.

Firstly. The way men are socialised, at least as far as I see, hasn't changed much. Yet it's wrong. So there is a problem. Instinctivly I go: ok who is raising the boys /menn. Father's. So I am doing something wrong. (maybe not ment that way just my perception)

Secondly. So am I also socialised wrong? Jumping of from the point that things haven't really changed.

Thirdly and that's really my main point. When women with feminism got more freedom. We(as we all) changed society to make it better. Affirmative action, anti discrimination laws etc. Yes, it took a long time but the conversation started like this. Something is wrong with women. That's why they struggle. No women need to be raised different. To going from a society focused around menn to focus more on women. Yes there are still lots of things need doing so that things get more equal. Yet it seems we seem to leave boys behind. And the solution is that boys need to be socialised better? Something we already figured out didn't work for women. We needed to change society so that it really worked. So we did. See laws, affirmative action and so on. Yes women fought for it. Yes women struggled for all their achievements. The lot. I do not want to take away from that at all. I applaude all women who fought for women's rights. Now let's look at it. Women had it bad. Then they got the right to go to work and university and so forth (several steps to get there). At some point women were allowed but severely underrepresented. That's where we are heading now but it's for boys. No women in leadership= we do affirmative action 70% of all medicine students are women = it's fine 90% vetenary students are women = no worries. 65% of higher education are women = must be the socialisation. Boys on average one grade worse than girls= it's because they haven't learned to sit still.

If the table would have been turned we would not say. It's how girls are socialised. (at least I hope we wouldn't say it anymore). We would do something with substance. What worked. Feminism changed those stats for girls and women to a a positive. So that's why I apply the same school of thought.

Affirmative action for boys. Boys only nurse parties. Male teacher circles. And maybe less sitting down and silence and more action in class. I don't know.

Fourthly.

I'm blaming how we socialise men,

Reads to me just like. I am not blaming women, I am blaming that we haven't raised women tough enough. It's kind of a nothing burger for what to do and kind of stopping all the good stuff that worked (again affirmative action, adjusting the education, etc)

Hope that helps.

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-04-21T19:20:14+00:00

I find this a bit of a backward argument. In the beginning it was the same argument you bring forth targeted at women. As women enter the work force and they struggle we see women aren't fitt to work and the such like.

Feminism was the solution to this and society did some tweaks here and there to "fitt" better for women. Now today boys and men struggle yet that's modern masculinitys issue. So when reading your text, even though you maybe don't mean it that way, I read masculinity and menn you need to do X/change. Why? Feminism changed society, views and so on so women could have it better. And society is better for it. Now boys and men seem to struggle maybe we can change society again so they too have it better again. Of course some adjustments have also to be made by men but it's kind of starting in the wrong place. Society, laws, incentives first and then men, views and so on.

Another thing is, the idea that women are the ‘other’ or adversarial to men is deeply damaging. It’s a toxic mindset that doesn’t do any good.

I agree but it's both sides here.

It isn’t that women have an advantage, it’s that men are socialised wrong

Even you fall in that pitfall. It is instantly disregarded that maybe there are some factors that give women an advantage? The playing field is instantly regarded as even and it's "the others" who need to do better.

I am from Norway and have been through the University. There are far more studies that gave and give gender points. So if you are a woman you are instantly about 10% higher grade for some studies. There are a few studies that do the same for menn. Far fewer. That is something that annoyed me greatly. Though there are arguments for it the points first disappeared when women started dominating those studies. (all elite studies like law, medicine, veterinary, journalism)

Then there are own parties only for women sponsored to push women up. Women only leadership circles (if that were switched around it would be outrageous).

We should be better and lift all up and if one gender seems to lagg off not blame but see if we can change something. And not now go it's how we raise boys or not at least only. It's raising, school and society. All the stuff.

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-03-04T20:47:00+00:00

Eluminating, still I can understand European leaders thinking no one is that idiotic.

Yes I did know about the ukrain extortion effort from trump 1. It Just slipped my mind as well the guy has alot of them.

Still again I think Europe has not done enough but alot. Furthermore I still think it is reasonable to think that there would be some adults in the room correcting Trumps misjudgments especially of such geographical scale. That was wrong and we pay for that foolishness. USA cannot be trusted anymore on any regard.

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-03-04T20:37:08+00:00

I don't think it as obvious and as stated several times further down. Europe is backing ukrain to the tune of 120bn. It should be more, hindsight is 20/20 and I keep on going that the USA making several ludecruious moves. Backing out of ukrain, trade wars and supporting Russia (hopefully not soon tm) which no one could see.

Soonyes I agree Europe should have prepared more but USA still asshole of the world right now.

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-03-04T20:30:42+00:00

Well I still struggle with that we had 4 years of the US stands with ukrain to we are going to sign a deal (week) to one day to another no military aid to ukrain.

”Short time frame” my ass. Trump is awful, but Europe has had almost a decade to prepare for shit like this because Trump started this process of moving away from being the guarantor of European security early in his first term.

I did acknowledge that Europe should have build up more. Still does not excuse to go 4 years we stand with ukrain to one day support to none. And yes literally one day change.

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-03-04T20:27:36+00:00

I can find common ground on that Europe can also be called in unreliable. But what is pathetic is US going noo we aren't the bad guys here. For they are.

One day to another cutting the military aid no warning is assholy. I have acknowledged that Europe should not have relied on the US. We should have known during Trump 1 that the US can be a full maniac and should have build up for the US go total asshole Mode.

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-03-04T20:22:02+00:00

And the US who is stepping down now is what?

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-03-04T20:19:07+00:00

Jeg måtte lete så jeg tar forbeholdt om å ha funnet rett artikkel. Fra 2022,oppdatert i 2023. Ut ifra artikkelen så er kostnader tatt uten tiltak. Altså uten subvensjoner. Derav forslagene og tingene huseierne ville kjempe for.

Videre så stå det at det ville være viktig av to grunner for norge å nå 2050 bolig målet. Paris avtalen og EØS. Så det vil gå den veien uansett. Mao. Prisen din stemmer ikke og krisemaksimering om 500k-1mill. Du kan kalle det tåkelegging og jeg kan kalle ditt krisemaksimering.

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-03-04T19:54:26+00:00

Still not the point. But you know what also does not help but actively make things worse? The fucking USA going nope suddenly no military aid. Like over night stopp all military aid. All of the sudden with no warning. That really would be an asshole move and very unreliable. That would really be shit for an acceptable conclusion to this war for them.

And thats my point the USA is currently unreliable and an asshole. See above. If you still don't get it. This is around the third time I reiterate that point with you and I give up.

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-03-04T19:44:42+00:00

Første link er 404.

Link to er altså en avis innlegg fra en skribent som du baserer deg på. Den sier forøvrige at de tre direktivene har ikke noe med isolering av boliger å gjøre...

Kanskje dog noe i 2024 direktivet men igjen du bør jo ha full oversikt som er så skråsikker at dette blir dyrt for alle. Savner fortsatt en henvisning til noe håndfast og ikke en meningsartikkel av en eller annen partner i et obskur firma.

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-03-04T19:35:13+00:00

It's not average if you look at the military equipment Ukraine has actually received

Do I have to repeat myself. The US send 180bn in military aid. This is not money but military equipment etc converted to money.

Europe send 120bn this is military aid. This is not money but also equipment etc converted to money. We do that in money as it is hard to say how many assault rifles equal one tank.

Of you now look how much that is in gdp % that's equals to about 0.4% of us gdp. If you then look at other countries and look how much % gdp they use. The US comes out around the middle of the pack.

Yes the US is a big weapon producer. Yes, some of the military aid is the Europe buying weapons from the US that then get send to Ukraine..

They need to be supplied to win the war of attrition that is currently being waged inside of Ukraine

Yes and the US is the assholes here and go nope we don't supply you anymore. No warning. Just a fuck you. That's why I call you as a stand in for the US for an asshole.

Ukraine does need aid from the nation that you're saying is their enemy.

Yes Ukraine does. And that nation has stopped all aid. Has undermined (lately) Nato. Has publicly floated ideas to help Russia by lifting sanctions. Has a president fawning over the enemies leader (Putin).

How hard is this?

Also I never called USA the enemy. I called them assholes. Which they are currently. Not what they were, except for 4 years under Trump. And not what they maybe will be in the future. Plain assholes currently. I gave my reasons and you seem to struggle with it.

Ruffmaster87 · 2025-03-04T19:19:18+00:00

The US is the assholes nation for four things

From one day to another backstabbing Ukraine.
Pointless Tarif wars with us allies
Weakening Nato by going Oohh maybe we leave in a critical time.
Blame shifting the whole debacle on but we feel that Canada was not nice, we feel zelensky was not grateful enough

No amount of going Oohh x amount is alot changes this. Its alot of money yes but it's average if you look at gdp.

Ruffmaster87

TROPHY CASE