And that isn't happening here, either.Yes they do fail. But rarely do they fail because someone doesn't like the political leanings of their owner and then commit acts of terrorism against him and his business.
And that isn't happening here, either.Yes they do fail. But rarely do they fail because someone doesn't like the political leanings of their owner and then commit acts of terrorism against him and his business.
All sorts of cases.Strange answer indeed.
What would be the case where you would support vandalism?
Are you saying there are no terrorist acts being conducted against Musk and his business right now?And that isn't happening here, either.
Vandalism isn't terrorism, and your insistence that boycotts and protests are is laughable.Rather than acknowledging the fact that people are conducting illegal acts which can be considered as terrorism, you would rather pivot and question why investors own Tesla stock?
When would graffiti be a legitimate action to take?All sorts of cases.
Here. An easy one.
There may be times where I think graffiti is a legitimate action to take.
I would still acknowledge it is criminal mischief and someone getting punished for it would not upset me.
No.Are you saying there are no terrorist acts being conducted against Musk and his business right now?
Exactly.As a reminder the dictionary defines terrorism as: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
When would punching a nazi be a legitimate action to take?When would graffiti be a legitimate action to take?
What a silly bar that would be.And is the bar for supporting what's right and condemning what's wrong based on what "upsets" someone?
Really?Vandalism isn't terrorism, and your insistence that boycotts and protests are is laughable.
Ho I see. Like storming and vandalizing the capitol? Up to the point, some die?The inconvenient truth here is that vandalism is illegal even if it's done to someone you don't like.
Rather than acknowledging the fact that people are conducting illegal acts which can be considered as terrorism, you would rather pivot and question why investors own Tesla stock?
...and people wonder it's called the lunatic left.
You can call vandalism terrorism a million times or more. I does not become right.That's called living up to campaign promises and doing what he believes is best for his country.
In stark contrast, you are condoning illegal acts of terrorism against a single person simply based on their political leaning.
If you think that's the same thing, then sorry, I can't help you with your lunatic left logic.
Answering questions with questions is an evasive tactic.When would punching a nazi be a legitimate action to take?
When would civil disobedience be a legitimate action to take?
When the object of the protest is a legitimate one.
What a silly bar that would be.
Why would you propose it?
...and the inevitable whatabout argument when cornered but I'll play along seeing as you're really desperate to draw similarities.Ho I see. Like storming and vandalizing the capitol? Up to the point, some die?
Setting property on fire and graffiti on someone else's property is not vandalism to you?You can call vandalism terrorism a million times or more. I does not become right.
Do yourself a favor and use Google or something else to look up what the definition of terrorism is. You appear a bit lame by insisting vandalism is terrorism.Setting property on fire and graffiti on someone else's property is not vandalism to you?
Targeting a single person with violence and death threats is not a form of terrorism to you?
Wow how much slack you provide when it's done to someone you don't like. Lol! The hypocrisy here is off the charts!
Oxford dictionary:Do yourself a favor and use Google or something else to look up what the definition of terrorism is. You appear a bit lame by insisting vandalism is terrorism.
You are so dead wrong....and the inevitable whatabout argument when cornered but I'll play along seeing as you're really desperate to draw similarities.
The capital was stormed that day because many people thought their democracy was being stolen and I also don't recall me ever condoning it do you?
Conversely, they didn't do it because they just didn't like a particular person there and decided to also attack their business and threaten them with death.
See the difference? I think you do. But I also think you won't condemn it because you just don't like Musk so terrorism in this case is ok with you.
Just making you aware of your own hypocrisy that's all.
Death threats can be terrorismReally?
By definition it is.
How about death threats? Is that also not a form of terrorism or are you desperately looking to juggle semantics because deep down you just don't like someone and somehow try and justify it based on your bias?
Still on the whatabout thing I see.You are so dead wrong.
They stormed the capitol because their king commander Trump told them to.
Now that he's back in power Trump and billionaire palls is slowly stealing the country and will turn it into an autocracy.
The only democratic party in the US are the democrats.
As many see Elon, and unappointed person making govt policy, as a threat to democracy then it's all quite justified....and the inevitable whatabout argument when cornered but I'll play along seeing as you're really desperate to draw similarities.
The capital was stormed that day because many people thought their democracy was being stolen and I also don't recall me ever condoning it do you?
Conversely, they didn't do it because they just didn't like a particular person there and decided to also attack their business and threaten them with death.
See the difference? I think you do. But I also think you won't condemn it because you just don't like Musk so terrorism in this case is ok with you.
Just making you aware of your own hypocrisy that's all.