Create account

No, as with this very comment, you just repeat. You do not say WHY it does not work. You just repeat the assertion.
replied · 342d
These are the reasons why comparing nations to homes cant be compared for border control.
So now this is the new thing you are going to repeat over and over?
replied · 342d
You keep asking for the reasons. You ask me to repeat it in a different way so that you might understand.
Oh, give me a break. I have been very clear that I do not want you to repeat. What I ask you to do is fill the gaping hole in your logic, WITHOUT repeating the faulty logic
replied · 342d
You ask for the reasons, and get given the reasons, and then hand wave away the reasons. Explain how those reasons are not good enough for you.
You use words like "scale" and think you have explained something. Scale is not an argument. You must explain how the scale makes a difference.
Actually, answer me this. Do I want you to repeat? Have you understood that I want you not to repeat?
And you should go back and count your own repetitions and be ashamed of yourself for making them. It is very impolite to do this when it has been made clear that it is not helpful.
replied · 342d
If you ever get why these are explanations why you might go back and see how it was being spuoon fed to you, and you just couldn't see it.
You have now started filling the previous hole that I talked about. You have even started to change your stance by now to something completely different from what it was in the start
replied · 342d
Originally I was talking a out freedom of movement, and how governments shouldn't be able to restrict people from coming and going across the border. Like the EU, but globally.
All that remains now is to start pretending that this is what you said the whole time. We shall see if you are sufficiently dishonest to go there
replied · 342d
I have not changed on that at all. You have just been saying that chang happen by comparing it to private property.
OK, that answered that question. You are that dishonest.
Projecting again. And you use my words against me almost immediately after I use them. This stinks of intellectual dishonesty.
replied · 342d
It is mocking, not intellectual dishonesty. Lol
It really is not easy to understand when you are being honest. Honestly, your logic is so flawed that I cannot tell if you are just trolling at the best of times. Please don't do that.
replied · 342d
My logic has been consistantly and sound. You just keep hand waving things away.
So this just shows that you are a kid with some big words. You have no idea what you are talking about. You have totally made a fool of yourself.
replied · 342d
These are why. You just dont get that.
Wrong. You left a gaping hole in your argument over and over. As I explained, you chose a c, but you did not prove that the lack of c in B necessarily proved the parallel was faulty
replied · 342d
Scale, and public vs private. B is an individual case, while A is on a larger scale. Private vs public ridership. Which aspects confuse you so I can deal with how they apply.
They all are attempts to confuse the issue. You can let random people into your country or into your family. They may become "integrated" or not. You have no way of telling.
Still, all those "aspects" are wrong. You can explain them, and I can pick apart your attempts. It should be easy enough.
replied · 342d
Try and do so then
You refuse to refute the ideas. You just keep asserting they are wrong. I am the only one backing what I say with an argument.
I refuse to make your argument for you and then refute. Is it too much to ask to make a real case for how these "aspects" play out in real life to a difference before I refute?
replied · 342d
I made my arguments. Now refute them. If not then you are incapable.
So you did not claim above that you could go more in detail on them? Your sentences are botched, not easy to know what you really are trying to say
replied · 342d
Consider I have had to repeat it to you multiple times you should understand the reasons given by now.
Ah, back to repeating. You have not "had to" repeat anything. You have been obnoxious enough to keep repeating after I asked you not to. There are no reasons, you are full of hot air
replied · 342d
You say not to repeat and then ask again for the how those are dissimilar on ways hat make the comparisons meaningless, which makes me repeat the reasons. You cant refute the reasons.
No, I asked specifically for explanation of HOW your platitudes work in real life to make a difference to my parallel. WITHOUT repetition of the platitudes. You know this
replied · 342d
Yes, and you failed to respond.
OK, exactly where did you do what I say I asked for here, with me failing to respond?
replied · 342d
When I gave a list of the dissimilar qualities that make comparing those two fall apart on this particular issue. You can either say why those dissimilar qualities dont matter or not.
OK, so you didn't. You repeated the old things again. You keep avoiding my ABc argument and the red/blue jackets parallel. It is up to you to show it matters first.
replied · 342d
I already explained how your ABc argument was wrong, and corrected it for you. I explained how the quality c was exactly how the two were dissimilar.
OK, now you are just lying
replied · 342d
Sure... even if you dont like the examples I have given, you should at least try to respond to them. If not it just shows you can not.
You know that this does not follow. There could be many reasons why I choose not to play your games. To try to score cheap points like that is even more intellectual dishonesty.
replied · 342d
The only intellectual dishonesty is coming from you. You try to claim my arguments are in a different form, and attack that form. Strawman much?
It might have been, if you were right about that assertion. Point out where I did that in detail. Not vague arm waving. Where exactly did I say what.
replied · 341d
Repeating yourself.
Since you are probably going to object to that: I can say "Airplanes can't fly because the sky is blue". That is not an argument, I would need to show why the blueness matters
replied · 342d
I did explain why they matter. It explained which qualities were disimilar and how it makes your comparison break down. How much do you need it spoon fed to you?
All the way to where you get off the platitudes and give an argument.
replied · 342d
I gave a list of disimilar qualities. I have spoon fed the argument to you.
Yes, you gave me a list of platitudes. No, that is not spoon feeding. It is intellectually dishonest conversation. And I did explain why this is so.
replied · 342d
You gave a strawman of why you think it is so. You have not, because you can not, actually refute why those disimilar qualities make your comparison fail.
It is your job to show how they make the comparison fail, not mine.
replied · 341d
I did. Quit repeating yourself.
What you do is indicate it is up to me to fill in the blanks (how blueness messes up air travel) and then refute. This is preposterous.
And no, it is not sufficient to say "Well, not only is the sky blue, the forest has snakes too". You keep doing this. Platitudes like "scale" are not enlightening to me.
If instead I were to say "when the sky is blue, the atmosphere gets super hot, so the wings of the plane melt and fall off", then I would have at least a real (albeit poor) argument
You were on the right track a bit with the aging population argument, except of course you missed that the same could be used for families. At least that was an attempt.
replied · 342d
You should try comparing to a similar style of argument. Your long example has nothing to do with the argument I gave at all.
You keep making this unfounded assertions. They always show to be wrong when we investigate them. Then you go on to new ones. I think you actually manage to fool yourself with this.
replied · 342d
To use your formula, I explained how your comparison of A and B broke down due to factors c, d, e, and f were disimilar, and it is those qualities that matter when comparing A and B.
replied · 342d
I have not gone on to k
New ones. Funny because you said I was repeating them before. I'm still waiting for any attempt to show why the disimilar qualities I gave were wrong.
And you might get one, once you show they are relevant.
replied · 341d
Oh I have. Many times. Since you cant refute them though you pretend they didn't happen. I get it. You cant back up your words.
I did refute it. c, d, e ...k, they are all of the form of my new airplane argument platitudes. It does not matter how many platitudes you add, they are still just platitudes.
replied · 342d
They are not in the form of your airplane argument at all actually. You have yet to actually refute the points. You are just hand waving them away by misinterpreting them.
OK, if you had a good argument, you would make that one, and stick to it. But never mind that. Pick one here and now and present it properly.
replied · 341d
Quit repeating yourself.
Pick your best argument and repeat it here. As if you mean it.
But the reason is clear enough. You tried to show how it did not make sense, and failed, and now you instead try to pretend there is an argument there that you will not tell me about
Maybe you missed my argument that "scale" is not an argument. You must explain how scale plays a role. Hence my ABc argument, which you seem to have forgotten.
replied · 342d
We did get to why scale matters actually. When you talked about letting a bump in your home, and I said it wouldn't matter if your home had millions of people already.
If I don't get you to make the argument first, you will change your stance after the fact and pretend that the new stance was your stance all along, as you have shown willing to do
They may help your economy or they may break it. They may help you when you get old, or they may rob you blind. You just don't know. You act as if there is certainty they will be good
Also, the repetition is still impolite.