Comment on Happy Irish Unification yearđ
gregorum@lemm.ee â¨10⊠â¨months⊠agoItâs sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened
hereâs the thing, though: by no measure could this statement be considered even remotely true.
what does this have to do with it?
Do you want evidence that people died in the tororist attacks, or that the statement is offensive?
because, at no point, did anyone ask for evidence of nor call into doubt either of those claims.
VioletTeacup@feddit.uk â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
It was and still is unclear what you were asking me to prove. A comparison isnât a statement of fact, itâs 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.
gregorum@lemm.ee â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
I made myself very clear:
which you failed to do spectacularly by comparing two things which bear no resemblance in the way you compared them:
because it wasnât, for it achieved none of its intended goals. if it is your assertion that it did, itâs 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.
youâre not a victim because you made a terrible argument and got called out for it.
VioletTeacup@feddit.uk â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
Thereâs 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 wonât be responding again, but please take some time to consider how you approach discussions in the future.
gregorum@lemm.ee â¨10⊠â¨months⊠ago
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 youâre somehow unclear of why after Iâve explained it several times.
Iââm very sorry you canât wrap your head around this. and, yes, itâs best you donât respond again, as Iâd just keep repeating myself.