You make some good points.
Back in the late 2000 or early 2010, there was a spate of, let's say, aggressive vandalism directed at abortion clinics. I cannot help but think that, even though no person was hurt, that it must have been pretty scary for both the employees, and the patients. But would you argue that it's not terrorism? I'd argue it was. It was a direct effort to use force, I would say violence, in order to cause a political change in practice, if not in fact.
Falsehoods? Like equating municipally owned water towers and privately owned charging stations?
No falsehoods like "property damage isn't violence against civilians," when we both know perfectly well it can be.
"False equivalency" seems to be another way of saying that you can't defend your position without illustrating that you define "violence against civilians" based on how much you like the civilians in question.
No, but if someone did, and could support their case, I'd allow it.
Can we not link to reddit's craptastic image containers?
I'm not playing devil's advocate. I'm trying to get people on my side of the political divide to stop supporting their ideas with falsehoods. That is one way the right wing is able to attract a certain kind of adherent. They just have to point to things like this, where we say, and support, a false idea that we demonstrably don't even believe ourselves.
If our ideas are good, we only need the truth to make them look good.
Why do you think that? Because I'm trying to get us to make a sensible argument rather than a simple, incorrect argument?
You know, I might be a little more ok with this, if it actually stopped school shootings.
But I doubt it will.
It's quite easy to understand. But you said "Property damage is not violence against civilians."
Clearly property damage can be violence against civilians.
It is if you're using the definition provided by the person I'm replying to.
Only if you're shorting them to further a political goal.
Do you think the employees of the dealership felt threatened?