Tesla stock drops by 50% in three months

[Skoob]

And that isn't happening here, either.

Are you saying there are no terrorist acts being conducted against Musk and his business right now?

As a reminder the dictionary defines terrorism as: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

 

[Valcazar]

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?

Vandalism isn't terrorism, and your insistence that boycotts and protests are is laughable.

 

[Skoob]

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.

When would graffiti be a legitimate action to take?

And is the bar for supporting what's right and condemning what's wrong based on what "upsets" someone?

 

[Valcazar]

Are you saying there are no terrorist acts being conducted against Musk and his business right now?

No.
I mean, Trump and company are going to want to claim there are, because they want to use "terrorism" as a rider to suppress political dissent, sure.

As a reminder the dictionary defines terrorism as: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Exactly.
And we aren't seeing anything that a reasonable person would call terrorism.

 

[Valcazar]

When would graffiti be a legitimate action to take?

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.

And is the bar for supporting what's right and condemning what's wrong based on what "upsets" someone?

What a silly bar that would be.
Why would you propose it?

 

[Skoob]

Vandalism isn't terrorism, and your insistence that boycotts and protests are is laughable.

Really?
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?

 

[jalimon]

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.

Ho I see. Like storming and vandalizing the capitol? Up to the point, some die?

 

[danmand]

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.

You can call vandalism terrorism a million times or more. I does not become right.

 

[Skoob]

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?

Answering questions with questions is an evasive tactic.

You said something illegal is ok because it doesn't upset you (and in this case because it's being done to someone you just don't like).

(btw I'm having fun watching you tap dance around this and sadly, the only reason why you are is that you just don't like someone but are trying in vain to justify it for more sane reasons).

Take a step back from your bias for a moment...if someone you like had their business set on fire and received death threats simply because of their political leanings, you would be outraged.

 

[danmand]

[QUOTE="Skoob, post: 8886890, member: 330825]

Take a step back from your bias for a moment...if someone you like had their business set on fire and received death threats simply because of their political leanings, you would be outraged.
[/QUOTE]
Doing Nazi salutes is not 'political leanings'. It is entirely accepted to boycott businesses or other entities that engage in Nazi salutes.

That is why 94% of Germans will not buy a Tesla.

 

[Skoob]

Ho I see. Like storming and vandalizing the capitol? Up to the point, some die?

...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.

 

[Skoob]

You can call vandalism terrorism a million times or more. I does not become right.

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!

 

[danmand]

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!

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.

 

[Skoob]

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.

Oxford dictionary:
"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

So?

 

[jalimon]

...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.

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.

 

[Valcazar]

Really?
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?

Death threats can be terrorism
But they aren't by definition terrorism, even when at a political figure.

The Trump administration has already said it intends to try and prosecute these things as terrorism and I am sure you will cheer them on.
But no, "Elon Musk sucks, blow up his shit" should not be considered terrorism.

 

[Skoob]

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.

Still on the whatabout thing I see.

You know I like watching someone tap dance around their own hypocrisy right? You totally avoided what I was saying and kept far away from your acceptance of terrorism if it's against someone you just don't like. Desperately trying to compare Jan 6th to what's happening against Musk.

"Billionaire pals"? Considering how much more the Dems raised for the last campaign I would say the billionaires are more pals with Dems!
But keep distracting away from your hypocrisy if it makes you feel better. It certainly provides me with entertainment!

 

[Butler1000]

...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.

As many see Elon, and unappointed person making govt policy, as a threat to democracy then it's all quite justified.

 

[Butler1000]

Oxford dictionary:
"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

So?

Careful, that can also sound like January 6th.

 

[Skoob]

As many see Elon, and unappointed person making govt policy, as a threat to democracy then it's all quite justified.

So everyone who performs work for the government needs to be appointed or elected?
What government policy did Musk create and pass exactly?

Please show your facts about who can perform work for the government and who has passed any related policies to what Musk has been working on.