I did explain. Comparing how you manage who comes I to your home to how you control who come and leave a country doesn't work. There are ways to compare nations to homes, not that one.
No, as with this very comment, you just repeat. You do not say WHY it does not work. You just repeat the assertion.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.
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 logicActually, answer me this. Do I want you to repeat? Have you understood that I want you not to repeat?
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 startAll 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
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 faultyAlso, the repetition is still impolite.
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.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
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?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
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 thisBut 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 aboutMaybe 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.
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.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 mattersWhat 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) argumentYou 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.