3 ms·

> For some reason you ignore the "intended to" when discussing firefighters Hmm, this is an excerpt from my previous comment: "you'll note that what firefighte

> For some reason you ignore the "intended to" when discussing firefighters Hmm, this is an excerpt from my previous comment: "you'll note that what firefighters might do is not intended to cause damage while vandalism obviously is". You do also seem not to understand the meaning of "intent"... Anyway, this is obviously useless, and in a way illustrates the issue when trying to tackle extremism, which is that it is outside the bounds of logic and reason, so bye.

komali2 2y ago
You don't believe the firefighters intend to damage the door preventing them from entrance? Or are you conjecting that the firefighters dream of a platonic door that functions stoutly as a door should, but magically vanishes when the firefighters (perfectly identified without fault) appear at it and need to force entry? And since this doesn't exist they don't intend to damage the door but do so anyway? Because if that's the case, then vandals also dream of a platonic city that doesn't require statements to be made through thrown rocks in order to achieve systemic justice. > Anyway, this is obviously useless, and in a way illustrates the issue when trying to tackle extremism, which is that it is outside the bounds of logic and reason, so bye It saddens me that when you find someone you disagree with, you assume they're simply irrational lunatics and thus not worth paying attention to.