Portland.

[Bobmuhthol]

Weird, I don't remember qualifying that statement as "violent CRIME."

From OED:

violence: The exercise of physical force so as to inflict injury on, or cause damage to, persons or property; action or conduct characterized by this; treatment or usage tending to cause bodily injury or forcibly interfering with personal freedom.

Nothing supports a dumbass claim quite like a pedantic and questionable interpretation of a subset of the definition of a term cited from a dictionary. Damaging property is a crime, but it isn't a violent crime, and yet you want the world to believe that graffiti is violence.

Somehow, someway, if you were standing trial for graffiti, I suspect you would not characterize the act you're being charged with as a violent act. But when it's the left doing the same thing, shit, that's as violent as it comes.

[Tgo01]

Nothing supports a dumbass claim quite like a pedantic and questionable interpretation of a subset of the definition of a term cited from a dictionary. Damaging property is a crime, but it isn't a violent crime, and yet you want the world to believe that graffiti is violence.

I didn't even mention crime. This is what I said in the other thread about deflection, you want to drag me down into this rabbit hole with you but it's not going to work.

Bob, it's okay, you were wrong. It happens.

But I am curious how you think I misinterpreted the definition of "violence." That one should be a doozy to read.

[Bobmuhthol]

I didn't even mention crime.

...

But I am curious how you think I misinterpreted the definition of "violence." That one should be a doozy to read.

Oh, I see. You didn't use the word crime, but your claim is that the protests are not peaceful and should be stopped by law enforcement. Well, if there's no crime being committed here, then the law enforcement activity to stop it is itself unlawful... but you don't believe that.

And to the same extent that you didn't "mention crime" even though you really did without having to use the word, I didn't mention "misinterpreting" anything. I called your interpretation pedantic and questionable. This isn't a deflection issue. It's a critical thinking issue. And you, having yet to provide any evidence of your intelligence being high or my intelligence being low, still haven't shown us that you have critical thinking skills.

[Tgo01]

Somehow, someway, if you were standing trial for graffiti, I suspect you would not characterize the act you're being charged with as a violent act. But when it's the left doing the same thing, shit, that's as violent as it comes.

A) If my choices were between "peaceful" (which is what many Democrats have described these protests as) and "violent" then yes, I would characterize graffiti as violence.
B) We aren't talking about graffiti, we are talking about a bunch of hooligans tearing down a protective barrier so they can further damage the courthouse said barriers are protecting.

Would it make you feel better if I said "non-peaceful" instead of "violent" from now on? You know two words that mean the same thing?

[Bobmuhthol]

A) If my choices were between "peaceful" (which is what many Democrats have described these protests as) and "violent" then yes, I would characterize graffiti as violence.

You're making my point for me. You simultaneously want it to be true that graffiti is both violent and a crime, but not a violent crime. Well, if it's a nonviolent crime, then it isn't violent to a reasonable person.

[Tgo01]

Oh, I see. You didn't use the word crime, but your claim is that the protests are not peaceful and should be stopped by law enforcement. Well, if there's no crime being committed here, then the law enforcement activity to stop it is itself unlawful... but you don't believe that.

Plenty of crime going on, you can clearly see that just from the two videos I linked to. I merely asked FlayedAngel if he considered property damage to be violent because he has said repeatedly that the protesters are largely peaceful and I am curious as to what he considers "peaceful."

I didn't mention "misinterpreting" anything. I called your interpretation pedantic and questionable.

Speaking of being pedantic. You didn't say I was "misinterpreting" anything, you just called my interpretation "questionable."

I'm going to need to take some Dramamine if we're going to continue backtracking at this rate.

[Tgo01]

You're making my point for me. You simultaneously want it to be true that graffiti is both violent and a crime, but not a violent crime. Well, if it's a nonviolent crime, then it isn't violent to a reasonable person.

Again I never said anything wasn't a crime, you brought up both crime AND graffiti, I merely asked FlayedAngel if he considered property damage to be violence since he has often referred to the protests as "largely peaceful."

Again would "non-peaceful" work better for your sensibilities?

[Bobmuhthol]

Speaking of being pedantic. You didn't say I was "misinterpreting" anything, you just called my interpretation "questionable."

I'm going to need to take some Dramamine if we're going to continue backtracking at this rate.

You remember when I mentioned earlier how you haven't demonstrated critical thinking skills? This is an example of it. Do you honestly believe that I, independently of your post that I responded to establishing a ridiculous pattern ("I didn't say X! I just said something that's equivalent!"), think that what you quoted stands valid out of context? You don't see that I'm using your poor logical reasoning against you?

[Bobmuhthol]

Again I never said anything wasn't a crime, you brought up both crime AND graffiti, I merely asked FlayedAngel if he considered property damage to be violence since he has often referred to the protests as "largely peaceful."

Again would "non-peaceful" work better for your sensibilities?

So, to be clear, you believe that we should categorize acts which are by law nonviolent crimes as violent acts, and this sounds reasonable?

[Tgo01]

You remember when I mentioned earlier how you haven't demonstrated critical thinking skills? This is an example of it. Do you honestly believe that I, independently of your post that I responded to establishing a ridiculous pattern ("I didn't say X! I just said something that's equivalent!"), think that what you quoted stands valid out of context? You don't see that I'm using your poor logical reasoning against you?

You really need me to apologize for calling you unintelligent and for me to recognize your vast education don't you? I honestly had no idea it was so easy to get under your skin.

I'm not going to apologize but I do feel slightly bad. This is kind of sad. You don't even know me, why do you care so much that I said you were unintelligent?