Risa

It was and still is unclear what you were asking me to prove.

I made myself very clear:

It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened

here’s the thing, though: by no measure could this statement be considered even remotely true...The argument you propose, conversely, lacks the obvious evidentiary support required to substantiate such… an ambitious arguments yours….come back with evidence to support your claims.

A comparison isn’t a statement of fact, it’s to illustrate how two things are similar.

which you failed to do spectacularly by comparing two things which bear no resemblance in the way you suggest:

It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism

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.

I further explained why I feel that it was fair to compaire them

no you then used this straw man instead:

Do you want evidence that people died in the tororist attacks, or that the statement is offensive?

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).

If you want to keep picking things apart for the sake of it though, have at it.

you’re not a victim because you made a terrible argument and got called out for it.

is that clear enough for you now?