3 ms·

Let me describe two situations: 1. Someone says "lets go attack the police" and then proceeds to go attack them. 2. Someone says "yes I can understand why som

Let me describe two situations: 1. Someone says "lets go attack the police" and then proceeds to go attack them. 2. Someone says "yes I can understand why someone got in a fight with the police after being attacked by the police" Because I'm asking you to give examples of (1), and you're going on about (2).

stale2002 6y ago
> yes I can understand why someone got in a fight No, not "understand". Instead you implied that it would be justified and also acceptable. In this situation I really would not consider you much different than the other side if you are attempting to say that the violence was justified and acceptable. If you are saying that it was justified and acceptable, which your comment pretty clearly seemed to imply, then I would consider the difference between you and "the other side" to be very small to the point where the difference doesn't matter that much. That's pretty close to advocacy for violence to say that it was justified and acceptable.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  I'm going to disengage because you've chosen to repeatedly ignore my comments, and instead respond to imagined things that I haven't said. I can only assume this is because you can't actually do what I've asked you to do seven times now, and find someone actually openly advocating for and requesting that people engage in violence against the police. I want to be absolutely crystal clear about one thing: I have never, not in this comment thread, nor anywhere else, advocated for people to engage in violence against the police. It is frankly insulting for you to insinuate that I would do so, or to state that there is essentially no difference between me and people who planned and executed an attack on congress.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > I have never, not in this comment thread, nor anywhere else, advocated for people to engage in violence What I pointed out is that you basically said the violence was "justified and acceptable". Those were your words, when you used the words "justified" and "acceptable" in your original comment to generally describe that violence in general. I didn't make you say that.

stale2002 6y ago

> yes I can understand why someone got in a fight No, not "understand". Instead you implied that it would be justified and also acceptable. In this situation I really would not consider you much different than the other side if you are attempting to say that the violence was justified and acceptable. If you are saying that it was justified and acceptable, which your comment pretty clearly seemed to imply, then I would consider the difference between you and "the other side" to be very small to the point where the difference doesn't matter that much. That's pretty close to advocacy for violence to say that it was justified and acceptable.

joshuamorton 6y ago
I'm going to disengage because you've chosen to repeatedly ignore my comments, and instead respond to imagined things that I haven't said. I can only assume this is because you can't actually do what I've asked you to do seven times now, and find someone actually openly advocating for and requesting that people engage in violence against the police. I want to be absolutely crystal clear about one thing: I have never, not in this comment thread, nor anywhere else, advocated for people to engage in violence against the police. It is frankly insulting for you to insinuate that I would do so, or to state that there is essentially no difference between me and people who planned and executed an attack on congress.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > I have never, not in this comment thread, nor anywhere else, advocated for people to engage in violence What I pointed out is that you basically said the violence was "justified and acceptable". Those were your words, when you used the words "justified" and "acceptable" in your original comment to generally describe that violence in general. I didn't make you say that.