Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't really care for semantics. Anywhere with a "customs officer" is an international "port of entry"?
You should care about semantics, it would help you stop making a fool out of yourself. That is NOT what it says at all.
Quote:
Meaning, any McDonalds could be converted into a "port of entry", lol.
Wrong again. You really don't have a shred of reading comprehension do you?
Quote:
Still, it's hard to think of any "port of entry" being truly international in the sense of NYC, Miami, LA, the real ports of entry.
Wow, you really are clueless.
Quote:
Port also implies next to water, a geographical area that forms a harbor: the largest port on the eastern seaboard.
No it doesn't.
You have proven yourself to be a first class clueless wonder. You live in your own little bubble of ignorance and will NOT look at anything beyond your small twisted view of the World. I cannot imagine trying to fumble through life with such a narrow mindset that even documentation and proof can sway a WRONG viewpoint. I can now see why you came up with "Narnian," you really do live in your own little fantasy-land.
Since facts and common sense mean nothing to you, I cannot see how any further discussion can help.
Don't really care for semantics. Anywhere with a "customs officer" is an international "port of entry"? Meaning, any McDonalds could be converted into a "port of entry", lol.
Still, it's hard to think of any "port of entry" being truly international in the sense of NYC, Miami, LA, the real ports of entry.
Port also implies next to water, a geographical area that forms a harbor: the largest port on the eastern seaboard.
You don't seem to care for factual information, either.
This isn't simply a case of semantics, it's the case of someone who doesn't have a clue of what they are talking about. That person being you.
If Narnian is the term for someone who is completely wrapped up in their own fantasy world, I would definitely say you are the most Narnian member of City-Data.
I simply don't believe that a small, yet still designated "international" airport means the same thing as the major international airports in the US. Which is being argued here, and should be expected from Narnians.
That was the only point I wanted to make. I knew the Narnians would argue that "international" means the same thing, even if they don't fly directly out of the country earlier.
I've had this argument before with Narnians. Essentially, you could argue that a rural community having a McDonalds is theoretically the same as NYC in this aspect; as NYC also has a McDonalds, parallel to how they both have international airports. It's the same thing then.
I simply don't believe that a small, yet still designated "international" airport means the same thing as the major international airports in the US. Which is being argued here, and should be expected from Narnians.
That was the only point I wanted to make. I knew the Narnians would argue that "international" means the same thing, even if they don't fly directly out of the country earlier.
I've had this argument before with Narnians. Essentially, you could argue that a rural community that has a McDonalds is theoretically the same as NYC; as NYC also has a McDonalds. Same place in a different place.
I simply don't believe that a small, yet still determind "non-Narinian" mind holds the same weight as a government designation.Which is being argued here, and should be expected from Narnians.
That was the only point I wanted to make. I knew that you would try to find fault with the argument, even if you know you're wrong.
I've had this argument before with delusional people. Essentially, you argue with them that just because they think it, doesn't make it true; as if you had any chance of getting through to them. I like cheese pizza, but prefer pepperoni.
I simply don't believe that a small, yet still designated "international" airport means the same thing as the major international airports in the US. Which is being argued here, and should be expected from Narnians.
That was the only point I wanted to make. I knew the Narnians would argue that "international" means the same thing, even if they don't fly directly out of the country earlier.
I've had this argument before with Narnians. Essentially, you could argue that a rural community that has a McDonalds is theoretically the same as NYC; as NYC also has a McDonalds. Same place in a different place.
No, people are telling you (and you're choosing to ignore it) that the international is a label from the federal government, applied to a government designated place that is an official point of entry that has a custom's office. There are tons of them. It's not exactly special. It's not like the cities just slap the international designation on it for fun or to make themselves seem more important.
I don't see anyone arguing that IND is exactly the same as JFK or LAX.
As far as McDonald's go...they all have basically the same menus with the same crappy food...so they essentially are the same from city to city.
I simply don't believe that a small, yet still designated "international" airport means the same thing as the major international airports in the US. Which is being argued here, and should be expected from Narnians.
That was the only point I wanted to make. I knew the Narnians would argue that "international" means the same thing, even if they don't fly directly out of the country earlier.
The problem is that you are assigning a meaning to a word that is different than it's real meaning. It is impossible to have this argument with you without arguing semantics because you have the semantics wrong.
No, people are telling you (and you're choosing to ignore it) that the international is a label from the federal government, applied to a government designated place that is an official point of entry that has a custom's office. There are tons of them. It's not exactly special. It's not like the cities just slap the international designation on it for fun or to make themselves seem more important.
I don't see anyone arguing that IND is exactly the same as JFK or LAX.
As far as McDonald's go...they all have basically the same menus with the same crappy food...so they essentially are the same from city to city.
Dumb comparison.
Well, that is actually being argued here. I keep being told:
They are designated INTERNATIONAL!!!
Implying the difference between JFK and IND is basically negligible, as they both have the exact same designation, there can be little, if any difference.
Implying the difference between JFK and IND is basically negligible, as they both have the exact same designation, there can be little, if any difference.
Link to ONE place where someone other than you said that there is no difference because of a designation of "international". What other posters are trying to pound into your thick skull is that even small places have the designation of being "International" and you are the one that is saying they are trying to make them to be the same as JFK. They are not saying that at all, you just are not understanding what is being said and trying to get into an argument. Everybody else knows what is being said and you are the clueless wonder that keeps getting it wrong, yet acting like every other poster is the retard.
That is the damn dumbest argument I have ever seen. To extrapolate that out to mean cities, then you are saying the people would think my little city of 1200 was the same as NYC... nobody in their right mind would jump to that conclusion like you keep saying they are. And yes, my town is set up as a city for the Gov't, so is designated a "city" where other places the same size are either towns or villages.
Link to ONE place where someone other than you said that there is no difference because of a designation of "international".
That is the damn dumbest argument I have ever seen. To extrapolate that out to mean cities, then you are saying the people would think my little city of 1200 was the same as NYC... nobody in their right mind would jump to that conclusion like you keep saying they are. And yes, my town is set up as a city for the Gov't, so is designated a "city" where other places the same size are either towns or villages.
It's being directly implied. Arguing this "international" designation, lol. I understand they are international, does that mean they are perceived as international?
Well, that is actually being argued here. I keep being told:
They are designated INTERNATIONAL!!!
Implying the difference between JFK and IND is basically negligible, as they both have the exact same designation, there can be little, if any difference.
I'm just pointing out how ridiculous that is.
That's because YOU are the one arguing it. No one else is. You are creating a straw man argument.
Here. Let's reexamine the line of discussion involving Indianapolis International Airport.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985
Indianapolis International Airport: It's not International. Technically it is a few months out of the year (last time I checked), but even then going to one place in Mexico shouldn't really count as being International. It's like going to Canada once in your life and saying you're a world traveler. Two terminals. "Modern" looking. Certainly not the worst airport I've been in (I'm looking at you San Juan... Okay, you got me there, your Duty-Free stores were pretty sweet, in my opinion).
First mention of international airports. Note, it's not from an Indianapolis Narnian trying to claim that they have an International Airport, ergo they are on the same footing as New York.
It's someone from Chicago criticizing Indianapolis for having an airport called Indianapolis International Airport, because they are not satisfied with the number of international flights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic Toast
Indianapolis does not pick whether the airport is termed "International" or not. Completely irrelevant point.
This is the completely delusional wacko Narnian response. Obviously this post claims that Indianapolis does indeed have a bunch of international flights which makes it the same as NYC.
Oh, wait. It's doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
I know Hartford Ct has an "international Airport" too, does that make them Narnian
Sarcasm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic Toast
Probably. Louisville International Airport at one time had only one single flight that left the country. Louisville, you are now narnian.
More sarcasm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985
As for the International Airport: I don't care if they choose the international part or not. It is deceiving. You can't fly from Indy to Toronto. You have to fly to Chicago, or Atlanta, or Charlotte. Sure, Indy has one destitnation that is international and is a direct flight, but like I said earlier, that doesn't count for me.
Imagine going to the Indianapolis Zoo, paying money, walking through the gates to find a monkey in a cage, a Tabby house cat in an enclosed case, a Golden Retriver tied to a pole, some squirrels in a tree and a horse. I would not consider that a Zoo, but a Petting Zoo.
I do not consider going to one city outside the country, only half the year, to be "International". I think that would be a Regional Airport. That's my beef with the airport. Other than that, it is perfectly fine.
Chicago poster is upset because it doesn't matter whether or not Indianapolis picks said airport designation, because said airport designation does not fit his/her own definition of international.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic Toast
This is another topic that you'll rarely see outside of the city data forum. Indianapolis International Airport ships cargo to Toronto, and passengers to Cancun and occasionally to Toronto direct. If you don't like the designation, take it up with the FAA.
This point really should've ended this vapid discussion about airport designations. If Indianapolis did not give their airport said designation, how can it be a "Narnian" trait? The designations are controlled by Washington (which might as well be considered the wardrobe of America, as it is the gateway to Narnia).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neworleansisprettygood
An international airport just means that it has the clearance to accept flights from outside the country. Lake Charles, LA, a city of about 250,000, has two airports, and one is an international one- even though the other one is the one that actually has passenger service.
Further clarification of what international means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bydand
Even better example: Chippewa County International Airport. In an unincorporated community by the name of Kinross or Kincheloe depending on who you talk to. in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Less than 1000 people live in the area, yet they have an "International" airport. The main runway is actually a little over 14,000' long, but they only use 7201' of it as runway right now. It is an old Air Force Base that closed in the mid-late 70's.
Further example that pretty much any size place can have an International Airport.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tollfree
It claims to be International; therefore it is. Anyone can declare anything international if they'd like. Does that mean it's perceived as "international", probably not. I don't think some of the posters get that. After all, they are Narnian.
Then this is you again spouting off more incorrect information (which spawned so many posts, I'm not going to bother quoting them).
Quote:
Originally Posted by tollfree
It's basically O'hare now, the difference is only negligible, as they are both "international".
And finally, for the grand finale, this is you making the leap from Indianapolis having an International Airport to it being "basically the same as O'Hare." It wasn't the Indianapolis poster who said that. It wasn't anyone else. It was you.
Which leads me back to my earlier point:
Quote:
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.Generally, the straw man is a highly exaggerated or over-simplified version of the opponent's original statement, which has been distorted to the point of absurdity. This exaggerated or distorted statement is thus easily argued against, but is a misrepresentation of the opponent's actual statement.
This is a perfect description of this entire thread from your end.
Last edited by Yac; 07-05-2018 at 05:42 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
