又開溜﹖

吵﹖吾兄言過其實。

Did we go into a stage of emotional quarrel? I really don't think we did yet. Please don't interpret it that way. It is far from the truth. I believe we are still able to be here to reasonably exchange our "arguments".

Your first conclusion is that "Y city has to be tolerated since it stirs chaos so much in UDN community forum." I believe you MUST have at least two premises to support the conclusion. The first fundamental one is 凡事引起爭議者﹐必有其存在的價值, The second one is Y city causes huge chaos.

If you don't use the first one and also believe it as a generalization, please let me know how you can reason the specific observation, i. e. Y city, and deductively conclude that Y city has the value of its own existence? Without this generalization, it would be very hard to come up your conclusion. Am I right on it so far?

When I felt confused about your conclusive argument, I went further to see what the ground you used to lay down it. I found that it HAS TO BE BASED ON the fact that you have such a generalization in your reasoning as "Everything justifies its existence by a simple fact that it causes dispute or turmoil." 

In order to clarify my confusion about your argument and not misunderstand what you concluded, I just went further to ONLY ask a small question which was literally "repeating" your conclusion by replacing "Y City" with "al-Quaeda." I believed you realized that you have a terrible "unsound" premised and agreed my point that the premise is not true.

But your later response in your answers really surprised me. I wonder what you want to accomplish here. Hope you can catch and grasp my real idea by now?