It is a reason, not mine.

but you said it was

I said it was a reason that existed, not one that I choose to use.

oh okay

so you think that

terrorism in a country should be a non-factor when it comes to immigration

No, but I think the wartorne area is a much better argument and so choose to go with that one.

It is now blatantly obvious you are trying for a gotcha moment with that above statement.

oh okay then so you do think that an increased propensity for emigrants from a certain country to be terrorists should be a factor when it comes to setting immigration policy toward that country?

I can acknowledge the validity of an argument without choosing to uphold it, I have my own, which is the wartorne area.

of course but regardless of whether or not this is a reason you would use for restricting immigration from iran you still think that this is a valid reason to restrict immigration from a place, therefore, you think that generalization is not necessarily wrong

No

I think it is a reason some use, and it has it's merits, but it also has the obvious problem, which is generalization, thus I choose not to use it.

but did you not just say that it is a valid reason to use

One thing wrong with an argument does not make it invalid.

i asked you if you thought that the propensity for emigrants from a certain area to be terrorists should be a non-factor when it comes to immigration policy and you said no

Yes, for me, not the case for everyone, I speak for myself.

of course, for you, this means that generalization is sometimes okay

For some it may be, I choose to avoid it.

Don't ask me to defend an idea which I do not subscribe too.

we are going in circles now

Because of you.

if you choose to avoid it then surely you don't think that the propensity of emigrants from a certain area to be terrorists should be a factor when setting immigration policy?

I wouldn't use it if I were in charge, but then I'm not in charge now am I.

you wouldn't ever use it?

Unless I knew without a shadow of a doubt that the specific person trying to emigrate was a terrorist I would not use it.

what if we had a hypothetical example where 50% of the population of a country are terrorists who will carry out attacks on infidels if they are allowed into the united states

And that is where the conversation becomes pointless

it isn't pointless because i am getting to the heart of the principle

the tankie is talking again

great

Well, based on the hypothetical you presented, we know that 50% are terrorists, and in order to know that we must know who they are, so we know who we can and cannot let in the country.

let's say god came down from the heavens and told us that 50% of the people are terrorists

and we don't know who they are

🤦 🤦 🤦 🤦 🤦

should we place further restrictions on immigration from this country

Where done here, this is retarded.

meratrix do you understand the value of a hypothetical

I have a hypothetical

Do you understand the value of a slightly realistic hypothetical.