RE: Yup. This is For Certain.
January 7, 2016 at 11:30 pm
(This post was last modified: January 7, 2016 at 11:32 pm by TheRocketSurgeon.)
(January 6, 2016 at 3:53 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:(January 6, 2016 at 2:28 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: You realize that force doesn't require violence, only the threat of it, right?Nobody is terrorized, no force was used, there has been 0 violence and you haven't had your coffee yet or something. If you think they should be labeled at terrorists, what do you think the government should do? Go in and shoot them all?
I think you need to understand the terms being used here. If I point a gun at you and demand your wallet, that is taking your wallet by force. Simply because I didn't shoot you doesn't mean force wasn't involved.
As for "terrorized", I didn't say anyone was. What I said was that this is a textbook case of terrorism, which it is.
Yes. Here's that first paragraph:
That isn't a comparison. That is pointing out the assumptions most Americans hold. I've emphasized where that point is made.
You'll need to change your name to Captain Dumbass if that's the takeaway you got from my post. Really, I had thought you were smarter than this.
I would put good money that if these guys were left wing you guys would have no problem with them.
Is there some kind of requirement that conservatives be assholes? I don't support terrorists, no matter what ideology they follow. Liberalism means believing in the rights, protected equally under law, of all persons. Terrorists, by definition, attempt to assert their own desires over the agreed-upon rights of others by using force and/or terror, rather than utilizing the political/social processes we have in place to do it peacefully.
As someone who was wrongfully imprisoned for nearly a decade, you'll find few people who are more skeptical of the power of government agents and the overreach of our police powers... but these men are threatening to kill law enforcement for carrying out the lawful duty of police, as they violate the law of the land in clear defiance of the lawful authority of the government, simply because they want to profit, which is a terrorist act. I'm a former environmental scientist/field biologist, yet I would not care if they were doing this same action on behalf of protecting the refuge. The moment they brought guns and threats into their actions, they ceased to be political activists and became terrorists.
Fuck them and fuck you for saying I would support them if they shared my ideology.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
