That is not what I said. I simply stated my belief that an act is either foolish or not. The consequences are up to the fool to deal with. Why must there be delineations of foolishness in the first place? Making such distinctions threatens to validate the act seen as "less foolish", despite both acts being foolish. As I said some this is either foolish or not, the consequences are up to the fool to deal with.
If a foolish act is not more or less foolish than another foolish act then they are equally foolish. You didn't say it but its the only implication of your assertions.
The reason I specifically mentioned the black man's yard is because in that case there's clearly a target, the property owner. With the public sphere its less clear. Which is not to say you can't carry out an act of intimidation in the public sphere but I think the argument is harder to make and I don't think it applies here.
i prefer knowing all the info before commenting
how is it a hazard to my health? a bigger hazard would be some vigilante statue defender with a gun
right, so just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian? 'gotcha, liberals!'?If that's the point of delineation then I'll have to lean towards terrorism since the statues in question aren't realistically on the terrorist's own property. Most likely they're on public land. Since the Klan just got refused a permit for burning a cross on public property I'd like to think there's some strict scrutiny reason for denying the First Amendment rights of assembling and speech.
No. But I'm enjoying the argument. Sometimes it's fun to be on the other side.
It's called playing devil's advocate. It's not controversial. But I'm sorry for hurting your feelings. Just that I'm more interested in playing out the arguments than going rah-rah for a political team. Consider me a lone wolf with the heart of a kitty-cat.
its an appeal to morality, not emotion. killing in self defense is acceptable, but murdering people for damaging an inanimate object is ludicrous.
Seems like an appeal to emotion. kill the "bad" guys.
there's enough lack of respect for (human) life that we dont need fat lards like this guyThere's enough cowardice and apathy out there that we don't need government clamping down on the righteous who are willing to take a stand. In this particular instance I don't expect an execution. And I'd expect most any shooter to do some time. Unless of course the vandal became violent while being impeded from criminal activity. To me that's self-defense on the part of the good-Samaritan. Then I'm fine with an eternal nighty-night for the violent criminal. I'll rest comfortably believing that the world is a better place for it. Fuck violent criminals, and sometimes assholes are useful to be made an example of.
That's gonna be hard to explain to my Jewish stepmother.
btw have you seen this? That's Deandre Harris clubbing an old man which prompted his ass whooping.
Oh. You mean like President Trump?
Make me shut up. Also, what makes your definition the automatic winner? I have no reason to trust or believe a thing you say.
But don't you see how making delineations of foolishness validates the one perceived as less foolish?
What do we look like here urban dictionary?
it's when a right winger riots/commits violence.
