lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... You do get that saying you're willing to use violence to defend yourself, including lethal force, isn't actually an act of violence itself, right?
Except they're not defending themselves since they're not under attack.
Except that's the only condition in which they said they would use violence. If they were attacked. So as long as they aren't under attack, they aren't committing violence. Get it?
Quote:
The government has owned that land since the 1930s to begin with, and you can't steal what you already own so they're also not defending the community from land theft.
Except for the string of land grabs the BLM has engaged in since the 60s, which is the whole point of this protest.
Quote:
Even Zimmerman had more reason than these militant extremists.
What do you mean "even"? They aren't related, except in your own mind as some kind of scale of "things I agree/disagree with". I have not said I agree with what they are doing at all. I have merely said that what they are doing should not be labeled "terrorism". And I stand by that assertion.
Quote:
Living in a fictional world isn't really all that realistic or usable to me, but I'm not trying to defend terrorism like you are. But keep those strawmen coming.
A. I'm not defending anything.
B. I don't agree that what they are doing is terrorism.
You're turning this into an issue of whether I like/dislike or agree/disagree with something. But I reject the assumption that we should choose to apply labels based on that criteria. That's the part you just aren't getting. I can simultaneously disagree with something someone is doing while also arguing that what they are doing is not terrorism. Can you? Because it seems like this is where you are getting tripped up.