5 ms·
> But it's not as obvious as you think. If a person or organization calls for violence or the destruction of property, they are a terrorist organization. If th
by icandoit 3y ago
> But it's not as obvious as you think.
If a person or organization calls for violence or the destruction of property, they are a terrorist organization. If the reasons they give for this are based on identity they are additionally a hate-group.
Seems pretty clear to me. A world with less moral clarity here is one with more (necessarily?) violence and destruction. Why do you think this line of argumentation is either morally permissable, or even virtuous? What argument convinced you?
- ThrowawayTestr 3y ago>If a person or organization calls for violence or the destruction of property Are Martin Luther King or Malcolm X terrorists?
- smsm42 3y ago> If a person or organization calls for violence or the destruction of property, they are a terrorist organization US Army has left the chat. All the militaries in the world joined them. The police and the FBI are not far behind. > Why do you think this line of argumentation is either morally permissable, Which "this" line? Questioning your definitions? I don't think I need anybody's permission for that. But wait. Let's say the KKK 3.5, freshly reorganized, does not call for violence and destruction of property of Jews and black people. Make no mistake, they still hate them and think they are sub-human and should be oppressed and ultimately eliminated, but they are now vowed to act through strictly non-violent means - education, propaganda, investment, protest, boycotts, electioneering, lawmaking if they could make it - but no freelance violence. And, also, they are called LLL now, just because. By your definitions, they are not a hate group anymore? If yes, then what criteria did you use and why didn't you initially include them?