cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/1505645
Alt text: Screengrab from Star Trek: TNG showing Data saying to Picard “the Irish Unification of 2024”
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/1505645
Alt text: Screengrab from Star Trek: TNG showing Data saying to Picard “the Irish Unification of 2024”
here’s the thing, though: by no measure could this statement be considered even remotely true. if someone, very boldly, were, today, try to make the argument that “the Troubles were worth it,” I dare say that they’d have a good case for that argument, despite the heavy controversy which would come with it. The argument you propose, conversely, lacks the obvious evidentiary support required to substantiate such… an ambitious arguments yours.
And I certainly don’t support it.
edit: it’s a matter of factual and evidentiary support. come back with evidence to support your claims.
Do you want evidence that people died in the tororist attacks, or that the statement is offensive? As to the first, you’re free to read up on the history of the troubles yourself if you like. As to the second, it’s a matter of opinion, not fact, but considering that history, one that I feel is fair enough. As far as I’m concerned, comparing a single terrorist attack to a series of terrorist attacks is more than reasonable.
what does the following statement have to do with it?
because, at no point, did anyone ask for evidence of nor call into doubt either of those claims.
It was and still is unclear what you were asking me to prove. A comparison isn’t a statement of fact, it’s to illustrate how two things are similar. I further explained why I feel that it was fair to compaire them. If you want to keep picking things apart for the sake of it though, have at it.
I made myself very clear:
which you failed to do spectacularly by comparing two things which bear no resemblance in the way you suggest:
because it wasn’t, for it achieved none of its intended goals. if it is your assertion that it did, it’s your job to prove that, which you have not.
no you then used this straw man instead:
then you used a series of unrelated equivocations rather than addressing the flaw in your logic: the lack of efficacy of the 9/11 attacks as a tool for social or political change (the entire premise from the start).
you’re not a victim because you made a terrible argument and got called out for it.
is that clear enough for you now?
There’s no reason to be rude. I strongly suggest you reread what I said and consider the context of the thread. I never said that 9/11 was a successful use of terrorism, I said that the statement Data made about the troubles being successful was offensive and would be similar to saying the same thing about other terrorist attacks. You then aggressively began demanding evidence for something that was never a statement of fact, making it unclear what you were talking about. When further questioned, you became genuinely insulting for absolutely no reason. I won’t be responding again, but please take some time to consider how you approach discussions in the future.
I have quoted you several times saying exactly that.
you may have intended to argue that, but you clearly argued:
and now you keep insisting that:
when you very clearly said this:
and now are acting indignant that I have to keep reminding you of that and how you’re somehow unclear of why after I’ve explained it several times.
I’’m very sorry you can’t wrap your head around this. and, yes, it’s best you don’t respond again, as I’d just keep repeating myself.
“It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism.” Sorry, I don’t know how this could have been clearer. Take care!
if that’s what you meant, perhaps you should have said that at some point…
by saying what you mean and actually providing evidence to back up your claims, as I have said repeatedly.