Well you accused me of whataboutism, so I explained how… yeah you could see it that way if you only look at the surface, but it’s really a way of illustrating a more complex idea.
And well, here you go again, attempting to distill everything into neat, simple little boxes.
Twice now I quite literally explained to you how context is important in … you know, definitions, which literally are a network of syntactic associations that are context… and now you’ve selectively replied by removing all of the context I gave.
So uh, yes, I’m glad we’ve cleared up that you are definitionally a simpleton, only insterested in very surface level, simple understandings of things.
When the person that started this thread said ‘property damage is not violence’, they likely (I can’t read minds, but I’ve got a hunch) meant that property damage is not of the same magnitude of severity, does not or should not be judged by the same set of standards as violence directly against a person, that the entirety of a scenario involving violence should be considered when assessing it.
IE, they’re using shorthand, and I attempted to unpack some of that shorthand for you.
Sort of like how the colloquial definition of ‘theft’ generally includes shoplifting, but generally excludes wage theft by employers, despite wage theft being of considerably greater monetary magnitude than shrink loss.
If you want ‘a definition’ of violence that doesn’t include property damage, here you go:
Violence is any act that causes direct harm to a thing capable of suffering.
Now you can point out how that’s a flawed definition, and I will redirect you to my comments on your own flawed and favored definition of terrorism from the FBI, and my own previous attempts at better defining violence, and then maybe we can have the actually interesting conversation about violence and property that you’ve thus far done your damndest to avoid.
I didn’t need any of that explained to me. I understand and agree. I’m trying to have a discussion about what is or is not terrorism while you’re trying to argue about whether the violence/terrorism is justified. I said in my original reply that it “Doesn’t necessarily make it wrong.”
No, I do not know. There was no “bad faith acting” above. Someone said property damage is not violence, I asked for evidence, none was provided, someone else jumped in to argue a bunch of stuff unrelated to the question but later admitted it was indeed violence, and by extension terrorism. What part of that do you consider “bad faith acting”?
The other user elaborated to you on the importance of context. They challenged the definitions of violence. You basically responded “I was right” with very simple ideas. They didn’t admit anything later, because their position remained the same throughout. You saying otherwise is the bad faith part. It is okay if you don’t understand the complexities, but it is bad faith to misrepresent that other user.
Well you accused me of whataboutism, so I explained how… yeah you could see it that way if you only look at the surface, but it’s really a way of illustrating a more complex idea.
And well, here you go again, attempting to distill everything into neat, simple little boxes.
Twice now I quite literally explained to you how context is important in … you know, definitions, which literally are a network of syntactic associations that are context… and now you’ve selectively replied by removing all of the context I gave.
So uh, yes, I’m glad we’ve cleared up that you are definitionally a simpleton, only insterested in very surface level, simple understandings of things.
When the person that started this thread said ‘property damage is not violence’, they likely (I can’t read minds, but I’ve got a hunch) meant that property damage is not of the same magnitude of severity, does not or should not be judged by the same set of standards as violence directly against a person, that the entirety of a scenario involving violence should be considered when assessing it.
IE, they’re using shorthand, and I attempted to unpack some of that shorthand for you.
Sort of like how the colloquial definition of ‘theft’ generally includes shoplifting, but generally excludes wage theft by employers, despite wage theft being of considerably greater monetary magnitude than shrink loss.
If you want ‘a definition’ of violence that doesn’t include property damage, here you go:
Violence is any act that causes direct harm to a thing capable of suffering.
Now you can point out how that’s a flawed definition, and I will redirect you to my comments on your own flawed and favored definition of terrorism from the FBI, and my own previous attempts at better defining violence, and then maybe we can have the actually interesting conversation about violence and property that you’ve thus far done your damndest to avoid.
I didn’t need any of that explained to me. I understand and agree. I’m trying to have a discussion about what is or is not terrorism while you’re trying to argue about whether the violence/terrorism is justified. I said in my original reply that it “Doesn’t necessarily make it wrong.”
Removed by mod
After reading through the thread I did the same thing.
I tagged them as “bad faith actor”.
Based on what, exactly?
Based on your bad faith acting. Ya know, the whole conversation up above.
No, I do not know. There was no “bad faith acting” above. Someone said property damage is not violence, I asked for evidence, none was provided, someone else jumped in to argue a bunch of stuff unrelated to the question but later admitted it was indeed violence, and by extension terrorism. What part of that do you consider “bad faith acting”?
The other user elaborated to you on the importance of context. They challenged the definitions of violence. You basically responded “I was right” with very simple ideas. They didn’t admit anything later, because their position remained the same throughout. You saying otherwise is the bad faith part. It is okay if you don’t understand the complexities, but it is bad faith to misrepresent that other user.