Halloween Attack NYC

Get ready - here comes another one (in Texas).

Now, the question is start a new thread for it or what?

Seems like you like starting threads for each attack because it allows you to reboot the discussion and lead with the same things you said before, while leaving the unaddressed counterarguments from the previous threads behind.

So, my answer is: no, not unless you have something totally new to say about it, or plan to use it just to discuss the news itself. If you're going to use it to pivot to the same talking points, then you should continue one of the existing discussions waiting for your reply, instead.

It's too bad there couldn't just be one thread for this stuff so that reports of these continuing acts could be confined to one place for those interested, who want to vent or discuss, or who want to keep abreast of news and updates. It's becoming obvious that unfortunately these attacks seem to be becoming a regular occurrence. Maybe you could start one, Yoda, that way it might insure that it not get closed?

I thank you for the guidance.

Regarding saying I want to use each thread to make the same points - it's funny because Ash is the gal recently asked why my points were so different between the LV attack and the NYC attack - and I answered that with different types of attacks, different methods, different circumstances, unknown vs. known motives, my points are going to be as different and varied as the information provided pertaining to very different attacks.

Right now we know nothing about Texas. Any points I end up making will be determined by the info provided.

Er, we were literally just talking about it, in this very thread. People pointed our this latest accusation wasn't consistent with the facts, and you responded with sarcasm.

I'll believe you want to have a discussion when you actually see one of them through. If you continually avoid substantive points and pivot back to venting as if nothing had been said or addressed, then I'll naturally assume you just want to rant. And no, I'm not going to start a thread to house your rants about terrorism. As I've said every other time someone has tried to pass ranting off as discussion: you don't need other people to rant. Start a blog.

Honestly, Chris, the reason I didn't debate your former posts was I wanted to consider if I was indeed as wrong and off base as you were saying I was, and look into a bit more to see if that's the case. I admitted right off that until the attack on Halloween, I'd never heard (or imagined) there was an immigration lottery in an era when we are faced with international terrorism. So, all I knew about it at the time I made this thread was that it was the means a terrorist used to get into the country and murder 8 people.

(Since the "Diversity Lottery" issue has been an almost week-long point of contention since the NYC attack, through many media outlets, it's apparent that it's an issue involving a lot of opinion, and someone who holds an oppositional opinion toward it is not just some uneducated loonie who's coming up with random biases toward it when there are individuals, groups and parties all over the country, including in high levels of government, who share that opinion and are taking actions to change the policy for the very reason that a terrorist utilized it as a means of access. Also, if it's such an unrelated, unfounded, unwarranted position to say it defies common sense in a post 9/11 world, then why has it been the central point of discussion and controversy on various news outlets for the last week?)

I don't get why you argue that I don't want to have a discussion or see one through. What is your interpretation of "seeing one through"? Having someone say you changed their opinion, that you out debated them? That you won?

Sometimes people just can't continue an argument on another's time frame because they have real stuff they have to go out and do, and by the time they get back here they may want to talk about something different or get distracted by something different (including immediate events that just occurred) rather than go back and try to tie up every single loose end of every conversation they took part in.

Exactly. You launched into an accusatory rant while admitting you didn't know much about it. Why not learn more first, to see it it applies? Could it be because the ranting is not actually a response to the events, but rather, that the events are just a pretext for it?

Who's saying this, exactly? Is anyone in this thread even really arguing that the program should continue?

This isn't the argument.

Probably because cable news discusses everything to death whether it merits it or not. Also, you're basically saying "if it's such a bad argument, why are people making it?"

No. My interpretation is of "seeing it through" is either articulating a coherent objection, or incorporating the counterarguments into the view in some form. Maybe this means tweaking the original claim, or maybe it means explaining why it doesn't hold/doesn't apply. The only thing I'm objecting to here is whistling on by like none of it happened, repeating the same things people have already replied to without replying to those replies.

Not having time to participate in a discussion is reasonable. So is losing interest. But none of that applies to situations where the same basic topic is discussed again later, which is what we're talking about.

Good advice, Yoda.
And, you may think I'm ducking you again, but I have to go make dinner for my mom.
I'm not being dubious or working to undermine anything - will try to check back later or tomorrow.

Looks like Des already beat him too it.

__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...