We’ll get there. Do you agree that my understanding of the supplied definition of terrorism is correct?
Edit: Well since you don’t seem to have the courage to come back, I’ll go ahead and finish up here.
Assuming that you agree to my understanding of the posted definition, otherwise you would have quickly pointed out an obvious flaw in my logic…
On my comment…
*Spraypaint a traffic camera, violence.
So what I’m hearing is, if you burn Tesla because their CEO is a scum-sucking useless billionaire who is dismantling the social services that you and your family rely on (and paid for!), in order to cut taxes for the 1%, you’re a terrorist.
If you set shit on fire because you like to watch stuff burn, you’re just a plain ol’ arsonist.*
You replied…
If that’s what you’re hearing, you should have your ears checked. It doesn’t matter who the offending person is or what they do. It only matters what the perpetrator does…
Indicating that my understanding of the posted definition of terrorism was incorrect, and further adding that an ideological component was not necessary.
I replied.
Yes, I believe that is what I wrote.
I was under the impression that I had the correct understanding of the definition of terrorism.
Then you wrote…
*No, what you wrote is
If you set shit on fire because you like to watch stuff burn, you’re just a plain ol’ arsonist.*
Which is confusing, because that was my example of something which was NOT terrorism.
So I clarified what your demonstrated understanding of terrorism was…
“Ah, so any property destruction is terrorism, got it. Thanks for clarifying.”
This is rationally what you said terrorism was, since your previous post indicated that an ideological component was not necessary, which means the test for whether or not a an action was terrorism was based solely on it be violent, and since you defined any property destruction as violence, it is logical to assume based on your demonstrate framework of knowledge that any property destruction is violence, and any violence is terrorism.
You then informed me that I was wrong, and thats not what terrorism is, despite me using the exact definition and amendment to the definition of terrorism that you provided.
So why write all this? Because there are two options going forward here. Either you made a mistake/lost context of the conversation, which is understandable given the depth and breadth of converations you were having at the time. A simple acknowledgement, and maybe an apology would take care of that. Or… Your understanding of your chosen definition of terrorism is incorrect or inconsistent.
Either way, without input from you, it’s clear that my logic is consistent here, and the error is on your part. Feel free to chime in and clear that up anytime.
We’ll get there. Do you agree that my understanding of the supplied definition of terrorism is correct?
Edit: Well since you don’t seem to have the courage to come back, I’ll go ahead and finish up here.
Assuming that you agree to my understanding of the posted definition, otherwise you would have quickly pointed out an obvious flaw in my logic…
On my comment…
*Spraypaint a traffic camera, violence.
So what I’m hearing is, if you burn Tesla because their CEO is a scum-sucking useless billionaire who is dismantling the social services that you and your family rely on (and paid for!), in order to cut taxes for the 1%, you’re a terrorist.
If you set shit on fire because you like to watch stuff burn, you’re just a plain ol’ arsonist.*
You replied…
If that’s what you’re hearing, you should have your ears checked. It doesn’t matter who the offending person is or what they do. It only matters what the perpetrator does…
Indicating that my understanding of the posted definition of terrorism was incorrect, and further adding that an ideological component was not necessary.
I replied.
Yes, I believe that is what I wrote.
I was under the impression that I had the correct understanding of the definition of terrorism.
Then you wrote…
*No, what you wrote is
If you set shit on fire because you like to watch stuff burn, you’re just a plain ol’ arsonist.*
Which is confusing, because that was my example of something which was NOT terrorism.
So I clarified what your demonstrated understanding of terrorism was…
“Ah, so any property destruction is terrorism, got it. Thanks for clarifying.”
This is rationally what you said terrorism was, since your previous post indicated that an ideological component was not necessary, which means the test for whether or not a an action was terrorism was based solely on it be violent, and since you defined any property destruction as violence, it is logical to assume based on your demonstrate framework of knowledge that any property destruction is violence, and any violence is terrorism.
You then informed me that I was wrong, and thats not what terrorism is, despite me using the exact definition and amendment to the definition of terrorism that you provided.
So why write all this? Because there are two options going forward here. Either you made a mistake/lost context of the conversation, which is understandable given the depth and breadth of converations you were having at the time. A simple acknowledgement, and maybe an apology would take care of that. Or… Your understanding of your chosen definition of terrorism is incorrect or inconsistent.
Either way, without input from you, it’s clear that my logic is consistent here, and the error is on your part. Feel free to chime in and clear that up anytime.