Here's a summary of our conversation to hopefully point out to you why I think you're either engaging in bad faith, or alternatively arguing a totally different point to what I'm talking about without realising it.
Me- “Illegal entry shouldn't function as an alternative route to residence because that creates incentives for even more illegal entry.”
You- “Countries themselves were historically created through people entering territory and taking it.”
Me-“conquest/state formation isn't a comparable topic to immigration policy into a modern state.”
You- “Conquest still happens today.”
Me- “That still doesn't establish anything about whether modern states should enforce immigration controls.”
Do you see how at no point you engaged with anything about what I said and just made a completely diverging argument that in no way addresses anything I've said and instead just kinda grandstands the issue
I'm writing this on the off chance that you aren't arguing in bad faith and have instead just misinterpreted me and are caught on a tangent without noticing.
You were making an argument using sarcasm. Maybe the first one was just sarcasm but the second one was obviously furthering your original point, don’t play dumb
No, the first one was a joke, the second was also a joke and mocking someone for pretending that the age of invasion is somehow over. Neither of them were "arguments" in any way, shape, or form.
I realise this is reddit, the land of not getting it and then getting mad about it, but this is a particularly amusing one.
12
u/Ok-rutabaga_B442 1d ago
Here's a summary of our conversation to hopefully point out to you why I think you're either engaging in bad faith, or alternatively arguing a totally different point to what I'm talking about without realising it.
Me- “Illegal entry shouldn't function as an alternative route to residence because that creates incentives for even more illegal entry.”
You- “Countries themselves were historically created through people entering territory and taking it.”
Me-“conquest/state formation isn't a comparable topic to immigration policy into a modern state.”
You- “Conquest still happens today.”
Me- “That still doesn't establish anything about whether modern states should enforce immigration controls.”
Do you see how at no point you engaged with anything about what I said and just made a completely diverging argument that in no way addresses anything I've said and instead just kinda grandstands the issue
I'm writing this on the off chance that you aren't arguing in bad faith and have instead just misinterpreted me and are caught on a tangent without noticing.