, well that depends on your source, unfortunately you were depending on my source to try to counter....derp!
Again, you equated it with "act", which concedes intent...and "enable" CAN include intent..
Enable
can include content.
That does not make intent inherent in enable. All squares are rectangles, which doesn't mean that all rectangles are squares. Which is why, in your example, the brace enabled someone to walk better.
Did the brace
intend for that individual to walk better? Was that the brace's
motivation? Or, as an inanimate object, did the brace lack any motivation whatsoever?
Definition of Enable:
verb (used with object), enabled, enabling.
1. to make able; give power, means, competence, or ability to; authorize:
This document will enable him to pass through the enemy lines unmolested.
2. to make possible or easy:
Aeronautics enables us to overcome great distances.
3. to make ready; equip (often used in combination):
Web-enabled cell phones.
That IS part and parcel of your whole hyperbole, that the govt is authorizing, acting, to have terrorist in the US.
:shrug: I have never claimed that the US deliberately imports terrorists. I have pointed out that our procedures may be enabling them.
Again, your imagination works against you.
no, my actual knowledge works in my favor.
It has already been established that they are synonymous, that authorize is appropriate in describing govt acts for the processing of refugees to live in the US.
The US does indeed authorize refugees to live in the US. Unfortunately, the vetting process that it uses has holes, and we can end up enabling terrorists to come to our shores.
That's right, I wasn't. Feel free to try to show otherwise with anything except your puerile attempts to claim that "enable" has to mean "deliberately authorize".
you were never making the now acknowledged accidents of errors in screenings as anything other than mistakes.
:shrug: I don't even know that I would technically call them "mistakes". You can't do what you can't do, and that isn't the same as screwing up what you can do.
After all, you have a long history here in this forum of supporting minority groups, immigrants and refugees and would never attempt to show them or the processes of their incorporation into US society as anything other than fair.
I am less concerned about fair than I am about mercy and security. I have a pretty long history in this form (from the beginning of the conflict, in fact) of arguing that protecting refugees should be a mission that we assign to U.S. forces, which we then deploy to achieve that task. When the same liberals now claiming that anyone who is against large-scale-importation of Syrians into our shores is mean were saying variations of "
F Them, We're Done Fighting Wars There", I was the guy arguing that we should be risking American lives and spending American treasure to help them escape the warzone and then protect them from attack. You won't acknowledge this because your purpose here is to troll rather than actually be sharpened (hence your attempt to demand that "enable" require "intent" in order to claim that I argued something I did not).
