[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You haven't made a point. If you had you would allow that my analogy works the same. Instead you backpedaled.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I explained your analogy for the sake of argument. Okay let me explain this in simplest way i can.

Your or anyone's personal feelings do not influence the point i was m.a.k.i.n.g.

Are we done now? Please say we're done.

LJS9502_basic

And this was my point...

Guess my previous explanation wasn't simple enough, too many words probably...Okay, here it is, the simplest explanation i personally can give. Person A thinks that person B attacked object C because of reason X. He is wrong. Person B attacked object C because of reason Y. I hope now you understand what my point was, i'm done with this.Stavrogin_

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

Nope, nope, wrong again. I didn't say it doesn't matter what you personally feel, i said that it doesn't matter to the point i was trying to make. Do i have to draw everything to you?

LJS9502_basic

It's an absurd analogy when you compare it with a trivial thing.Stavrogin_

Your or anyone's personal feelings do not influence the point i was m.a.k.i.n.g.

Are we done now? Please say we're done.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No. You missed the point. You ranted that it doen't matter what credence or justification I gave the issue...but then in the same conversation you belittled what would be a valid reason to another. You can't have it both ways. Either we accept reasons as valid to individuals or not. You are wiggling around to justify the reasons you agree with while belittling what you don't agree with. That is, indeed, the defintion of a contradiction.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

You completely and absolutely missed the point. Yet again!

LJS9502_basic

Okay, here it is, the simplest explanation i personally can give. Person A thinks that person B attacked object C because of reason X. He is wrong. Person B attacked object C because of reason Y. I hope now you understand what my point was, i'm done with this.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Terrorists have historically entered the US through those borders. That is not trivial.

LJS9502_basic

1. Person thinks the attacks were totally unprovoked.

2. They were not unprovoked, they had a reason.

3. Whether you think that reason is legitimate is not important, point is they HAD a reason.

The same goes with your trivial analogy, if a terrorist organization attacked Toronto because of the borders and a person thinks that they attacked them because of hate or jealousy i would correct them too by saying "no they attacked you because you didn't want to close your borders". THAT is the point i was trying to make. And yes, comparing border control with attempting to control an entire region is pretty falacious.

You completely and absolutely missed the point. Yet again!

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Trivial is subjective. LJS9502_basic

1. Person thinks the attacks were totally unprovoked.

2. They were not unprovoked, they had a reason.

3. Whether you think that reason is legitimate is not important, point is they HAD a reason.

The same goes with your trivial analogy, if a terrorist organization attacked Toronto because of the borders and a person thinks that they attacked them because of hate or jealousy i would correct them too by saying "no they attacked you because you didn't want to close your borders". THAT is the point i was trying to make. And yes, comparing border control with attempting to control an entire region is pretty falacious.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Ah I see. It's absurd to take the context of your posts and apply it to a different scenario. It's basically what you have been advocating in this thread. Because government A has done situation B then group C has a justification for attacking government A. But when the issue is against someone other than the US...it's an absurd analogy. Gotcha then. The US is always wrong no matter what. The enemy is right and the ends justify the means. Guess that's as far as we can go then since you don't allow for the differnece between legitimate governments and terrorits.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Of course it's important. Otherwise you are giving legitimacy to terrorist organizations to strike when they don't like what another country is doing. Canada doesn't secure their borders to the satisfaction of group X. Would you think group X was correct in a terrorist attack on Toronto? Remember....they have a reason why they attacked.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]So then you both misunderstood the post vis a vis there is a difference between issues between governments as opposed to terrorists? He was incorrect by the way.....

LJS9502_basic