• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is violence committed by militant Eco or Animal Rights groups acts of terrorism?

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.
 
Mmmmm, no. That wouldn't be viable. As I said, private property rights are strong in this country, and people who commit acts of violence and destruction are criminals, not heros.

Okay, then let's take a test case. A real one. Monsanto has many property rights to a large number of patents about genetically modified crops. If a farmer wants to remain competitive, he must buy the crops of Monsanto to plant. To do this, the farmer must sign a legal document for Monsanto that any environmental or health damage that can result out of him growing and selling those products is HIS financial responsibility, as it is a property and it is transferred onto HIM. Yes, property rights are strong in the US. And accordingly, the thugs do come down on you for your property, whether they come in jeans or suits. So, isn't property like a big game, only played in legislation chambers and tax accounting offices?

But, yes, I agree with you, PHYSICAL destruction of property is an absolute crime, if you were talking in the physical sense. I would advocate for stealing and re-selling it if I was an environmental/animalrights thug.
 
No, it is absolutely not a terrorism. When they repeatedly destroy a development company's equipments and hospitals' research facilities, those businesses tend to go out of business, and thereby we get a much better brand new opportunity, which is to buy out those newely blighted assets (lands, buildings, etc.) at the penny price. Violence is terrorism ONLY when it is against your interest.

Holy carp, I can't believe that I'm reading this. You are advocating destruction of other people's stuff so that after it's damaged you can buy it at a discount? And you don't see the immorality in such behavior? Scary, very scary indeed.
 
Back
Top Bottom