Quote:
Originally Posted by nostalgiaquest
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Weak analogy. Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren't really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.
|
Excellent, "weak analogy" used 3 times within a couple of sentences. It's a great analogy and can be applied to any form of security. Security is security, dumb motherfucker
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by nostalgiaquest
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Because walls... sorry, barriers... and anti-virus software are the exact same thing. And hackers have the same monetary resources as Mexican drug cartels. Haha.
|
Yes, we're talking about security. So in that regard, they are the same thing.
Also, hackers cost the US alone $600 billion each year.
The Mexican cartel only makes about $18 billion each year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nostalgiaquest
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
If i came out and said hey we have these hackers out there and we're going to spend the next 10 years developing the perfect anti-virus software, and this is exactly how its going to work when it's complete, don't you think the hackers would be ready for it?
|
The wall is a firewall on a computer. It keeps most people out. When hackers/cartels adapt, then you also update. This is pretty simple stuff, man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nostalgiaquest
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Anti virus software doesn't cost 20 billion dollars from the US taxpayer (not Mexico) to create.
|
You're correct. It's not 20 billion. It actually costs them MORE annually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nostalgiaquest
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
If/when the wall is complete, and drugs still flow across the border (because they will), how will the wall be adapted?
|
Anti-tunneling equipment, motion sensors, etc. If someone tampers with the wall, repair it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nostalgiaquest
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
When it is clearly documented that a majority of drugs come across the border at ports of entry, how will the wall be adapted
|
That data comes from seizures, which means it doesn't account for the drugs that are getting through in other areas. You can't count what you don't see. Pretty simple stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nostalgiaquest
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
When it is clearly documented that a majority of illegal immigrants come into the USA through ports of entry and simply overstay their visas, how will the wall be adapted?
|
Same answer. The count of the people who cross the border are unknown. You really don't use your head, man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nostalgiaquest
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
When smugglers simply tunnel under the wall, as has been done in the past, how will the wall be adapted?
|
They have technology for this issue. We've just never had a wall to test it on. Simple stuff, my dude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nostalgiaquest
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Isn't it the democrats saying that they want to pursue new and innovative border security ideas? Drones, sensors, increased patrols, immigration reform etc? Wouldn't you call those ideas adapting? A wall is an archaic solution to a modern problem. A frivolous campaign promise that Trump has now backed himself into a corner with.
|
Let's get that AND the wall. The wall keeps out the majority of border crossings. What do you think is harder? Crossing a border without a wall or with a wall?
Walls still work. Our cellphones can't launch us over a 30 ft barrier. It's why we have fencing and why rich Democrats have walls around their yards.