cmakaioz
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2012
- Messages
- 1,582
- Reaction score
- 451
- Location
- Oakland, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
You say no, and then repeat that two different actions are the same.
You have failed to read accurately.
An ambulance driving over the speed limit on it's way to an accident is not a crime. If you do it, it is.
No, actually. If I were allowed to drive an ambulance, and I drove that ambulance over the speed limit on the way to an accident, it wouldn't be illegal, either. In any case, you've slipped back into LEGAL issues, which is not what is at hand in the first place.
You seem to be fumbling around a very basic point of comprehension and literacy.
LEGAL definitions are based upon political power.
LOGICALLY CONSISTENT definitions are based upon logical consistency.
See, different people, different result, and entirely logical. Mindless hatred of government is silly.
You're welcome to take up that point some day when it is relevant to the discussion. I never proposed mindless hatred of anything.
Once AGAIN:
If two different people perform the same action (where "same" explicitly includes acknowledgement of the same behavior with the same goal result)...then by any LOGICALLY CONSISTENT definition, both their actions are terrorist, or both are NOT terrorist. You can't mix and match without reliance upon a magical (and unwarranted) exemption.
LEGAL definitions are CHALK FULL of such nonsense, but I have been -- through this entire time -- pointing to LOGICAL consistency, not the law.
As I pointed out (and you continue to ignore), governments and their designated agents have an obvious political and psychological stake in granting themselves magical unwarranted exemptions in the structure of legal definitions, and thus are extremely UNlikely to draft legal definitions in a way which would obviously result in risking their own conviction.