31–40 of 51 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You just showed me you care. Except you don't care about the community, because you hide behind a throwaway.
You are cussing me out in another comment, so you also don't seem to care about the community much. I wasn't hiding. But I'm definitely not revealing who I am now because you are hostile and unhinged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You just showed me you care. Except you don't care about the community, because you hide behind a throwaway.
You are cussing me out in another comment, so you also don't seem to care about the community much. I wasn't hiding. But I'm definitely not revealing who I am now because you are hostile and unhinged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> She set a car on fire! That is literally violence. Not only that - there were four people inside the van and she aimed the explosive at the window in an obvious attempt to set fire to the passengers. Lots of mental gymnastics required to believe this wasn't attempted murder.
You know nobody in this thread has any fucking idea what you're talking about, right? There is no video of the referenced incident that's been posted here or in the linked article. I give you a 10.00 for your mental gymnastics routine.
I agree that the police use excessive force way too much and are sadly allowed to get away with it. We definitely agree there.
But I do draw the line at arsonists in the act. That's the kind of "property damage" that can quickly turn into "mass murder" with a shift in the breeze.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Violence in retaliation is not an appropriate response to property damage.
Oh, but I think it is. Imagine sum of the pain of people, that they endured to make some property by having to craft it compressed in a few seconds when the result of their efforts gets destroyed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know nobody in this thread has any fucking idea what you're talking about, right? There is no video of the referenced incident that's been posted here or in the linked article. I give you a 10.00 for your mental gymnastics routine.
Thought we were talking about the much publicized incident in NYC. Looks like we weren't. MY BAD. I agree that the police use excessive force way too much and are sadly allowed to get away with it. We definitely agree there. But I do draw the line at arsonists in the act. That's the kind of "property damage" that can quickly turn into "mass murder" with a shift in the breeze.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If somebody incurs damage to government property without, as even you admit, any injury or immediate threat, and a government agent responds by using violence against that person, then yes, that is fascism. What perspective are you coming from that would define it any other way? You're practically admitting to using emotion to justify violence. Edit: Not to mention this is perhaps moot to the broader argument, as thi…
> If somebody incurs damage to government property There has been so much argument on the lines of "It's just property." I guess "They're just laws," as if they don't mean anything; as if laws were not the way we evolved socially to protect individuals from other individuals who wanted to cause harm. She set a car on fire! That is literally violence. It's literally destruction. Saying "oh, it's a thing and not a pers…
I'm referring to violence against people, not objects.
>Words are literally not violence. Speech is literally not violence. Silence is literally not violence.
I never said any of this, nor do I generally agree with any of it.
>Orwell had a term for this. It was called Double-Think.
I think these kinds of extreme us-vs-them strawmen are far more damaging, cruel, and thoughtless than the bad usages of the "it's just property" argument you're referring to are.
And to be clear, my entire post was in reference to the specific claim that destroying a police cruiser is automatically grounds for using violence against a person - for all I know about the example in question, her behavior on whole may have warranted the level of violence she received, but it's a ridiculous and anti-human opinion to default to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, but I think it is. Imagine sum of the pain of people, that they endured to make some property by having to craft it compressed in a few seconds when the result of their efforts gets destroyed.
Things will never be worthy of more concern than lives. This is an absolutely warped viewpoint you have and trying to justify it after the fact by inventing workers who allegedly care a car spit off an assembly line was destroyed is delusional.
Not sure what you mean by my viewpoint being warped. As far as I am concerned, your viewpoint appears rather primitive to me. The workers, who built the car are real. The pain of doing any work is real, just not as dense a physical pain, but very long lasting - that's why you have to sum over it.
If you thought I meant pain of these workers - that just proves your understanding is primitive. That description is just a way to approximate the total amount of pain, that needs to be endured to build a car. The subset of population, who will actually end up feeling its equivalence as a consequence does not matter for the point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, but I think it is. Imagine sum of the pain of people, that they endured to make some property by having to craft it compressed in a few seconds when the result of their efforts gets destroyed.
You're saying that the pain of the people who crafted a police cruiser is alone worth committing violence against a person. Don't do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're saying that the pain of the people who crafted a police cruiser is alone worth committing violence against a person. Don't do that.
You are saying without an argument, that I should not express my opinion. Don't expect people to listen to you - you will be disappointed.