> “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066” is accurate

Accurate as in someone said it? Centuries ago, people were worried that if the number of horses increased at the current rate, we would be waist-deep in horse manure.

And you admit yourself that the "precise number is contentious".

> Accurate as in someone said it? Centuries ago, people were worried that if the number of horses increased at the current rate..

"Someone" being a population expert. Of course, "if we do nothing about it" is implied - if nothing could be done, why even bring it up? But of course you know this, and stretching a best estimate prediction by an expert to somehow qualify as "disinformation" is not arguing in good faith.

> And you admit yourself that the "precise number is contentious".

The man jailed did not state any number, and was not in jail for getting the number wrong, so that objection is irrelevant. I only add the caveat to avoid an argument about the number that the source cited.

lol, this is odd.

British =/= Briton

And English most certainly =/= Briton.

No more than English == Iroquois

I see this a lot, but it depends on how you define these terms. If person A defines British such as British = Briton, you categorically claiming that British =/= Briton is not really an argument, just a statement of belief. An argument would be why you think your definition is better, more correct, etc.

Why is it we never hear about the Muslim prosecutor who put them away?

Nobody can predict what will happen in 2066 any more than people in 1986 could predict there would be an AI bubble today.

The slogan doesn't even mean anything. Who's "we"?