3 ms·

Calling them non-violent is a mistake given the wake of chaos they leave. Sure, they don't personally swing a knife around - instead, they blow away economies,

Calling them non-violent is a mistake given the wake of chaos they leave. Sure, they don't personally swing a knife around - instead, they blow away economies, or at a smaller scale they leave people crying in the street next to their piled-up possessions and repossessed house. That's plenty violent.

sliverstorm 13y ago
I'm not trying to downplay their crimes. They are real, and they can be hugely damaging. But when we're talking about throwing people together in a box, it's an important distinction. Someone who destroyed an economy may be amoral, but they are still pretty unlikely to stab their cellmate as compared to a violent criminal.
- saalweachter 13y ago
  What do you consider violent criminals? Thieves? Drug users? Fences? Smugglers? Forgers? Vandals? Illegal immigrants? Heck, do you think being an arsonist makes you particularly likely to stab a guy in prison?
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    All of your listed crimes are not violent crimes in themselves, although any and all can commit violence in the course of their "profession" in which case, yes, they are now violent criminals.
    - iamjustin 13y ago
      What are you saying? Just because they could be violent means they are violent? There's no profession where someone couldn't act violently.
      - sliverstorm 13y ago
        You folks are trying real hard to put words in my mouth. My parent asked if I thought those were violent crimes; I said no. I also added that if they commit violence in the course of those crimes, then yes they are now violent criminals. Maybe it was unnecessary extra commentary, but do you disagree with either of these statements? I should try the words-in-mouth game, it seems fun. Are you trying to say just because they aren't automatically violent, means they can't be violent? How could you say a thing like that? You are such a foolish person. Man, that was fun.
        iamjustin 13y ago
        Oh my god, dude. I honestly didn't understand what you were getting at. I read more into the extra commentary than you intended.

sliverstorm 13y ago

I'm not trying to downplay their crimes. They are real, and they can be hugely damaging. But when we're talking about throwing people together in a box, it's an important distinction. Someone who destroyed an economy may be amoral, but they are still pretty unlikely to stab their cellmate as compared to a violent criminal.

saalweachter 13y ago
What do you consider violent criminals? Thieves? Drug users? Fences? Smugglers? Forgers? Vandals? Illegal immigrants? Heck, do you think being an arsonist makes you particularly likely to stab a guy in prison?
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  All of your listed crimes are not violent crimes in themselves, although any and all can commit violence in the course of their "profession" in which case, yes, they are now violent criminals.
  - iamjustin 13y ago
    What are you saying? Just because they could be violent means they are violent? There's no profession where someone couldn't act violently.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      You folks are trying real hard to put words in my mouth. My parent asked if I thought those were violent crimes; I said no. I also added that if they commit violence in the course of those crimes, then yes they are now violent criminals. Maybe it was unnecessary extra commentary, but do you disagree with either of these statements? I should try the words-in-mouth game, it seems fun. Are you trying to say just because they aren't automatically violent, means they can't be violent? How could you say a thing like that? You are such a foolish person. Man, that was fun.
      - iamjustin 13y ago
        Oh my god, dude. I honestly didn't understand what you were getting at. I read more into the extra commentary than you intended.