(January 28, 2016 at 1:13 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:(January 28, 2016 at 8:48 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Wrong. You still haven't read the definition -- it's painfully obvious by now.
Yeah, do you know what expanded means? You take every little thing in the dictionary definition of terrorism and apply it to how the government should treat groups of people. There is a difference between a dictionary definition of something and a legal definition. Do you realize that? The dictionary is not the law. Thank goodness.
Do you really think it's a good idea to classify groups who intimidate people as terrorists? Jesus titty fucking Christ, what sort of facist shit is that? I'd be scared to live in that world. Trump would be salivating at that prospect.
If you look up the FBI's definition of terrorism, it follows the OED quite closely.
Yours ... not so much. You're entitled to use words as you please, of course; but you're not entitled to shelter when people point out your application of personal definitions when the discourse is public. If you don't like the criticism, that's not my problem. Words have meanings, and if you wish to twist those meanings in order to accord with your own personal view, then you have to expect that misunderstandings will occur and rancor will follow.
Those guys in Oregon wouldn't have done what they did if they didn't have firepower to enforce their will. That, right there, is the intimidation -- which is an element of both terrorism and violence.
tl/dr: if you're outside mainstream usage, don't get butthurt when folks point that out. Make your case using the language we all speak, or quit whining when your bullshit is called for what it is. Words have meanings. Ignore them at your own risk ... or risk to your message.
