Originally Posted by
sumskilz
Rather than hearsay, I've linked a massive quantity of evidence and quoted the experts who've studied the problem.
What is the point of deliberately misrepresenting what I said, and ascribing a false meaning to it, when everyone can read what I actually said? It's hardly controversial to suggest that violence is worse than mean words. Harassment and vandalism are crimes everywhere, but still lesser crimes than violent attacks.
Again, if we all accept that antisemitism among Germans is bad, how does that make it okay that it's even more prevalent among immigrants?
No, I'm not. Only the very most recently discussed studies have low n, and it's clear that you do not understand what "representative" means in a scientific context. A representative sample is a subset of a population that accurately reflects the demographic characteristics of the larger group. The n=85 study used a representative sample. Unless you can identify an error in the calculation of the margin of error of n=85 in this context, then your unsupported criticism can be dismissed as scientifically ignorant.
If you can pick 68 refugees at random and 85 refugees at random, and in both cases antisemitism was prevalent and a desire to commit genocide against Jews was present, that's a reasonable indicator of a problem. In fact, even taking into consideration the margin of error, it's an indicator of thousands to tens of thousands having "genocidal aspirations".