50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

[Cassandros]

The Chinese government is irrelevant. Your weak attempts to move goal posts are noted and ignored.

You attacked me for not using the dictionary term 'fascism' correctly enough. So we have found a new dictionary term to use instead: terrorist.

Thanks for your cooperation in finding the correct dictionary definition for antifa.

We've already agreed on a dictionary definition, (non-relevant, goal post moving text removed for context of the actual discussion. --Cassandros).

Excellent.

We are done here.

Thanks for your reluctant cooperation in finally admitting terrorist is the right dictionary definition for antifa.

[AnalHamster]

The Chinese government is irrelevant. Your weak attempts to move goal posts are noted and ignored.

You attacked me for not using the dictionary term 'fascism' correctly enough. So we have found a new dictionary term to use instead: terrorist.

Thanks for your cooperation in finding the correct dictionary definition for antifa.

We've already agreed on a dictionary definition, (non-relevant, goal post moving text removed for context of the actual discussion. --Cassandros).

Excellent.

We are done here.

Thanks for your reluctant cooperation in finally admitting terrorist is the right dictionary definition for antifa.

Do you think deleting the questions you refuse to answer is a more convincing approach than pretending you can't see it?

We've already agreed on a dictionary definition, we disagree on your subjective application of it to a violent protest group. Your cowardly evasion on another violent protest group is because you don't agree with yourself either. Your answer to the question of if the hong kong protesters are terrorists is plainly 'no', otherwise you wouldn't be so pathetically afraid to give it. Also why you can't say if antifa are fighting terrorists (again 'no') or why you think they are not arrested and prosecuted as terrorists ('because they are not terrorists').

[PimpDaddy]

https://trendingviews.co/video/antifa- ... 8966.html

Keep it classy!

[Cassandros]

The Chinese government is irrelevant. Your weak attempts to move goal posts are noted and ignored.

You attacked me for not using the dictionary term 'fascism' correctly enough. So we have found a new dictionary term to use instead: terrorist.

Thanks for your cooperation in finding the correct dictionary definition for antifa.

We've already agreed on a dictionary definition, (non-relevant, goal post moving text removed for context of the actual discussion. --Cassandros).

Excellent.

We are done here.

Thanks for your reluctant cooperation in finally admitting terrorist is the right dictionary definition for antifa.

Do you think deleting the questions you refuse to answer is a more convincing approach than pretending you can't see it?

We've already agreed on a dictionary definition, we disagree on your subjective application of it to a violent protest group. Your cowardly evasion on another violent protest group is because you don't agree with yourself either. Your answer to the question of if the hong kong protesters are terrorists is plainly 'no', otherwise you wouldn't be so pathetically afraid to give it. Also why you can't say if antifa are fighting terrorists (again 'no') or why you think they are not arrested and prosecuted as terrorists ('because they are not terrorists').

The discussion we have been having, which is now over since you finally conceded, has only been on the dictionary terms for fascist and terrorist. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

You keep trying to move the goal post in a weak attempt to change the discussion to something it never was to begin with. And I get it, being faced with the prospect of looking supportive a terror group is, distasteful, to say the least. Bummer for you I didn't let you, eh?

But, I tell you what. If you would like to start a new discussion in hopes to rebound from losing this one... I might be nice and have one with you.

However, you will need to ask nice.

[AnalHamster]

The Chinese government is irrelevant. Your weak attempts to move goal posts are noted and ignored.

You attacked me for not using the dictionary term 'fascism' correctly enough. So we have found a new dictionary term to use instead: terrorist.

Thanks for your cooperation in finding the correct dictionary definition for antifa.

We've already agreed on a dictionary definition, (non-relevant, goal post moving text removed for context of the actual discussion. --Cassandros).

Excellent.

We are done here.

Thanks for your reluctant cooperation in finally admitting terrorist is the right dictionary definition for antifa.

Do you think deleting the questions you refuse to answer is a more convincing approach than pretending you can't see it?

We've already agreed on a dictionary definition, we disagree on your subjective application of it to a violent protest group. Your cowardly evasion on another violent protest group is because you don't agree with yourself either. Your answer to the question of if the hong kong protesters are terrorists is plainly 'no', otherwise you wouldn't be so pathetically afraid to give it. Also why you can't say if antifa are fighting terrorists (again 'no') or why you think they are not arrested and prosecuted as terrorists ('because they are not terrorists').

The discussion we have been having, which is now over since you finally conceded, has only been on the dictionary terms for fascist and terrorist. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

You keep trying to move the goal post in a weak attempt to change the discussion to something it never was to begin with. And I get it, being faced with the prospect of looking supportive a terror group is, distasteful, to say the least. Bummer for you I didn't let you, eh?

But, I tell you what. If you would like to start a new discussion in hopes to rebound from losing this one... I might be nice and have one with you.

However, you will need to ask nice.

Nope, every post I have made contradicts your attempt to lie about that. You are making a subjective judgement that one group fits a definition, one of many available, and you are still refusing to answer simple on topic questions about whether other groups do, because you know that answering them reveals you are in fact making a hypocritical subjective judgement. If the questions are really irrelevant, why so scared of answering them?

We've already agreed on an acceptable (though not unique) dictionary definition, we disagree on your subjective application of it to a violent protest group. Your cowardly evasion on another violent protest group is because you don't agree with yourself either. Your answer to the question of if the hong kong protesters are terrorists is plainly 'no', otherwise you wouldn't be so pathetically afraid to give it. Also why you can't say if antifa are fighting terrorists (again 'no') or why you think they are not arrested and prosecuted as terrorists ('because they are not terrorists').

[Cassandros]

The Chinese government is irrelevant. Your weak attempts to move goal posts are noted and ignored.

You attacked me for not using the dictionary term 'fascism' correctly enough. So we have found a new dictionary term to use instead: terrorist.

Thanks for your cooperation in finding the correct dictionary definition for antifa.

We've already agreed on a dictionary definition, (non-relevant, goal post moving text removed for context of the actual discussion. --Cassandros).

Excellent.

We are done here.

Thanks for your reluctant cooperation in finally admitting terrorist is the right dictionary definition for antifa.

Do you think deleting the questions you refuse to answer is a more convincing approach than pretending you can't see it?

We've already agreed on a dictionary definition, we disagree on your subjective application of it to a violent protest group. Your cowardly evasion on another violent protest group is because you don't agree with yourself either. Your answer to the question of if the hong kong protesters are terrorists is plainly 'no', otherwise you wouldn't be so pathetically afraid to give it. Also why you can't say if antifa are fighting terrorists (again 'no') or why you think they are not arrested and prosecuted as terrorists ('because they are not terrorists').

The discussion we have been having, which is now over since you finally conceded, has only been on the dictionary terms for fascist and terrorist. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

You keep trying to move the goal post in a weak attempt to change the discussion to something it never was to begin with. And I get it, being faced with the prospect of looking supportive a terror group is, distasteful, to say the least. Bummer for you I didn't let you, eh?

But, I tell you what. If you would like to start a new discussion in hopes to rebound from losing this one... I might be nice and have one with you.

However, you will need to ask nice.

Nope, every post I have made contradicts your attempt to lie about that. You are making a subjective judgement that one group fits a definition, one of many available, and you are still refusing to answer simple on topic questions about whether other groups do, because you know that answering them reveals you are in fact making a hypocritical subjective judgement. If the questions are really irrelevant, why so scared of answering them?

We've already agreed on an acceptable (though not unique) dictionary definition, we disagree on your subjective application of it to a violent protest group. Your cowardly evasion on another violent protest group is because you don't agree with yourself either. Your answer to the question of if the hong kong protesters are terrorists is plainly 'no', otherwise you wouldn't be so pathetically afraid to give it. Also why you can't say if antifa are fighting terrorists (again 'no') or why you think they are not arrested and prosecuted as terrorists ('because they are not terrorists').

Not sure that quantifies asking nice... But I am bored.

So, you want to now discuss definitional applications. OK.

We see antifa screaming at old ladies, swarming people who disagree with them, and constantly invoking fear when they attempt to shut down anyone who holds a different political opinion then them.

So, the first thing we need to address is: Are the Hong Kong protesters invoking fear against other citizens in a hope to change their political views?

[AnalHamster]

We've already agreed on a dictionary definition, (non-relevant, goal post moving text removed for context of the actual discussion. --Cassandros).

Excellent.

We are done here.

Thanks for your reluctant cooperation in finally admitting terrorist is the right dictionary definition for antifa.

Do you think deleting the questions you refuse to answer is a more convincing approach than pretending you can't see it?

We've already agreed on a dictionary definition, we disagree on your subjective application of it to a violent protest group. Your cowardly evasion on another violent protest group is because you don't agree with yourself either. Your answer to the question of if the hong kong protesters are terrorists is plainly 'no', otherwise you wouldn't be so pathetically afraid to give it. Also why you can't say if antifa are fighting terrorists (again 'no') or why you think they are not arrested and prosecuted as terrorists ('because they are not terrorists').

The discussion we have been having, which is now over since you finally conceded, has only been on the dictionary terms for fascist and terrorist. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

You keep trying to move the goal post in a weak attempt to change the discussion to something it never was to begin with. And I get it, being faced with the prospect of looking supportive a terror group is, distasteful, to say the least. Bummer for you I didn't let you, eh?

But, I tell you what. If you would like to start a new discussion in hopes to rebound from losing this one... I might be nice and have one with you.

However, you will need to ask nice.

Nope, every post I have made contradicts your attempt to lie about that. You are making a subjective judgement that one group fits a definition, one of many available, and you are still refusing to answer simple on topic questions about whether other groups do, because you know that answering them reveals you are in fact making a hypocritical subjective judgement. If the questions are really irrelevant, why so scared of answering them?

We've already agreed on an acceptable (though not unique) dictionary definition, we disagree on your subjective application of it to a violent protest group. Your cowardly evasion on another violent protest group is because you don't agree with yourself either. Your answer to the question of if the hong kong protesters are terrorists is plainly 'no', otherwise you wouldn't be so pathetically afraid to give it. Also why you can't say if antifa are fighting terrorists (again 'no') or why you think they are not arrested and prosecuted as terrorists ('because they are not terrorists').

Not sure that quantifies asking nice... But I am bored.

So, you want to now discuss definitional applications. OK.

We see antifa screaming at old ladies, swarming people who disagree with them, and constantly invoking fear when they attempt to shut down anyone who holds a different political opinion then them.

So, the first thing we need to address is: Are the Hong Kong protesters invoking fear against other citizens in a hope to change their political views?

Some are, what with the smashing stuff and throwing things. But you know this already unless you are going to claim you don't watch the news, so why not just cut to the point and state you agree with the Chinese government, disagree with the US government and all free governments, and declare them terrorists? You don't need to pussyfoot around it for another few pages if you're finally willing to admit that is your inescapable conclusion if you want to call antifa terrorists, the only way you can support your incorrect subjective application of the term to antifa is to call the people antifa opposes terrorists, the hong kong protesters terrorists, and let's face it, every LEO in the US a terrorist sympathiser for not prosecuting them all. Gonna do it?

[Cassandros]

Excellent.

We are done here.

Thanks for your reluctant cooperation in finally admitting terrorist is the right dictionary definition for antifa.

Do you think deleting the questions you refuse to answer is a more convincing approach than pretending you can't see it?

We've already agreed on a dictionary definition, we disagree on your subjective application of it to a violent protest group. Your cowardly evasion on another violent protest group is because you don't agree with yourself either. Your answer to the question of if the hong kong protesters are terrorists is plainly 'no', otherwise you wouldn't be so pathetically afraid to give it. Also why you can't say if antifa are fighting terrorists (again 'no') or why you think they are not arrested and prosecuted as terrorists ('because they are not terrorists').

The discussion we have been having, which is now over since you finally conceded, has only been on the dictionary terms for fascist and terrorist. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

You keep trying to move the goal post in a weak attempt to change the discussion to something it never was to begin with. And I get it, being faced with the prospect of looking supportive a terror group is, distasteful, to say the least. Bummer for you I didn't let you, eh?

But, I tell you what. If you would like to start a new discussion in hopes to rebound from losing this one... I might be nice and have one with you.

However, you will need to ask nice.

Nope, every post I have made contradicts your attempt to lie about that. You are making a subjective judgement that one group fits a definition, one of many available, and you are still refusing to answer simple on topic questions about whether other groups do, because you know that answering them reveals you are in fact making a hypocritical subjective judgement. If the questions are really irrelevant, why so scared of answering them?

We've already agreed on an acceptable (though not unique) dictionary definition, we disagree on your subjective application of it to a violent protest group. Your cowardly evasion on another violent protest group is because you don't agree with yourself either. Your answer to the question of if the hong kong protesters are terrorists is plainly 'no', otherwise you wouldn't be so pathetically afraid to give it. Also why you can't say if antifa are fighting terrorists (again 'no') or why you think they are not arrested and prosecuted as terrorists ('because they are not terrorists').

Not sure that quantifies asking nice... But I am bored.

So, you want to now discuss definitional applications. OK.

We see antifa screaming at old ladies, swarming people who disagree with them, and constantly invoking fear when they attempt to shut down anyone who holds a different political opinion then them.

So, the first thing we need to address is: Are the Hong Kong protesters invoking fear against other citizens in a hope to change their political views?

Some are, what with the smashing stuff and throwing things. But you know this already unless you are going to claim you don't watch the news, so why not just cut to the point and state you agree with the Chinese government, disagree with the US government and all free governments, and declare them terrorists? You don't need to pussyfoot around it for another few pages if you're finally willing to admit that is your inescapable conclusion if you want to call antifa terrorists, the only way you can support your incorrect subjective application of the term to antifa is to call the people antifa opposes terrorists, the hong kong protesters terrorists, and let's face it, every LEO in the US a terrorist sympathiser for not prosecuting them all. Gonna do it?

You are mashing up a lot of different things and acting like they are all equal. That is incorrect sir.

Does trying to speak/attend at a 'free speech' event in Canada or on a college campus = terror? No, of course not. That claim of yours is pure bullshit. So, no, antifa is not 'standing up against terrorists', they are the terrorists by Websters definition.

Breaking windows in Hong Kong by protesters = terror? Ehhh, that's a stretch.

Now, you want to say that protestors getting violent and throwing things at police is terror, well... maybe. Do rocks terrify police?

But naturally we have to look deeper than just that action. We have to ask: have the Hong Kong protestors systematically utilized terror in an attempt to coerce others (as antifa does)?

Do you have any evidence that these violent outburst are the normal function of the protesters? Because if not, then I am reluctant to say they fit the dictionary term of terrorists.

[AnalHamster]

Do you think deleting the questions you refuse to answer is a more convincing approach than pretending you can't see it?

We've already agreed on a dictionary definition, we disagree on your subjective application of it to a violent protest group. Your cowardly evasion on another violent protest group is because you don't agree with yourself either. Your answer to the question of if the hong kong protesters are terrorists is plainly 'no', otherwise you wouldn't be so pathetically afraid to give it. Also why you can't say if antifa are fighting terrorists (again 'no') or why you think they are not arrested and prosecuted as terrorists ('because they are not terrorists').

The discussion we have been having, which is now over since you finally conceded, has only been on the dictionary terms for fascist and terrorist. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

You keep trying to move the goal post in a weak attempt to change the discussion to something it never was to begin with. And I get it, being faced with the prospect of looking supportive a terror group is, distasteful, to say the least. Bummer for you I didn't let you, eh?

But, I tell you what. If you would like to start a new discussion in hopes to rebound from losing this one... I might be nice and have one with you.

However, you will need to ask nice.

Nope, every post I have made contradicts your attempt to lie about that. You are making a subjective judgement that one group fits a definition, one of many available, and you are still refusing to answer simple on topic questions about whether other groups do, because you know that answering them reveals you are in fact making a hypocritical subjective judgement. If the questions are really irrelevant, why so scared of answering them?

We've already agreed on an acceptable (though not unique) dictionary definition, we disagree on your subjective application of it to a violent protest group. Your cowardly evasion on another violent protest group is because you don't agree with yourself either. Your answer to the question of if the hong kong protesters are terrorists is plainly 'no', otherwise you wouldn't be so pathetically afraid to give it. Also why you can't say if antifa are fighting terrorists (again 'no') or why you think they are not arrested and prosecuted as terrorists ('because they are not terrorists').

Not sure that quantifies asking nice... But I am bored.

So, you want to now discuss definitional applications. OK.

We see antifa screaming at old ladies, swarming people who disagree with them, and constantly invoking fear when they attempt to shut down anyone who holds a different political opinion then them.

So, the first thing we need to address is: Are the Hong Kong protesters invoking fear against other citizens in a hope to change their political views?

Some are, what with the smashing stuff and throwing things. But you know this already unless you are going to claim you don't watch the news, so why not just cut to the point and state you agree with the Chinese government, disagree with the US government and all free governments, and declare them terrorists? You don't need to pussyfoot around it for another few pages if you're finally willing to admit that is your inescapable conclusion if you want to call antifa terrorists, the only way you can support your incorrect subjective application of the term to antifa is to call the people antifa opposes terrorists, the hong kong protesters terrorists, and let's face it, every LEO in the US a terrorist sympathiser for not prosecuting them all. Gonna do it?

You are mashing up a lot of different things and acting like they are all equal. That is incorrect sir.

Does trying to speak/attend at a 'free speech' event in Canada or on a college campus = terror? No, of course not. That claim of yours is pure bullshit. So, no, antifa is not 'standing up against terrorists', they are the terrorists by Websters definition.

Breaking windows in Hong Kong by protesters = terror? Ehhh, that's a stretch.

Now, you want to say that protestors getting violent and throwing things at police is terror, well... maybe. Do rocks terrify police?

But naturally we have to look deeper than just that action. We have to ask: have the Hong Kong protestors systematically utilized terror in an attempt to coerce others (as antifa does)?

Do you have any evidence that these violent outburst are the normal function of the protesters? Because if not, then I am reluctant to say they fit the dictionary term of terrorists.

I'm simply asking you to apply the same subjective application of the definition to other groups, you've been running away from this for a half dozen pages or so now.

Yes breaking windows = terrorism is a ridiculous fucking stretch, precisely the point. You are the one declaring there is no lower limit on a crime constituting a terrorist act, now you have reversed yourself, you dumb hypocrite. Hong Kong protesters are right now today systematically using violent acts in their campaign to change the political system. Not all of them of course, just a hardcore minority.. sound familiar? You can literally turn on the news right now and see them doing it. Clearly you don't think they are terrorists, not even the violent ones, it appears you are making the determination they are not terrorists based on the severity of the crimes they commit, no? Are you finally going to summon the courage to admit that? It's the simple fucking point you've been running away from all this time.

You appear to have pulled something about free speech in Canada from your ass and accused me of saying it, I did not. Perhaps you're trying to pretend antifa have only ever attended one event? Also nope. They have opposed groups you would have to call terrorists, along with the hong kong protesters, based on your subjective application of the webster's definition - if you have the integrity to even attempt to be consistent. Which you do not. This would make them terrorists standing up against other terrorists in your warped reality defying world view, albeit one you don't actually hold.

This is a marked improvement though, well done. Can you stick with it and reach the logical conclusions?

[AnalHamster]

Breaking windows in Hong Kong by protesters = terror? Ehhh, that's a stretch.

Now, you want to say that protestors getting violent and throwing things at police is terror, well... maybe. Do rocks terrify police?

Just wanted to highlight this admission for you, it's what I've been saying and you've been denying/refusing to admit I asked for a half dozen pages now. This destroys your position dimwit. Whether a person/group is a terrorist is a subjective assessment based in part on the severity of the crimes committed, that is what you have finally admitted. Well done, now run along.

[Cassandros]

Breaking windows in Hong Kong by protesters = terror? Ehhh, that's a stretch.

Now, you want to say that protestors getting violent and throwing things at police is terror, well... maybe. Do rocks terrify police?

Just wanted to highlight this admission for you, it's what I've been saying and you've been denying/refusing to admit I asked for a half dozen pages now. This destroys your position dimwit. Whether a person/group is a terrorist is a subjective assessment based in part on the severity of the crimes committed, that is what you have finally admitted. Well done, now run along.

LOL, hardly.

Notice you omit the rest of the point that is in context to the discussion at hand. (Whereas I would omit your parts that were not in context to the discussion at hand).

See below.

[AnalHamster]

Breaking windows in Hong Kong by protesters = terror? Ehhh, that's a stretch.

Now, you want to say that protestors getting violent and throwing things at police is terror, well... maybe. Do rocks terrify police?

Just wanted to highlight this admission for you, it's what I've been saying and you've been denying/refusing to admit I asked for a half dozen pages now. This destroys your position dimwit. Whether a person/group is a terrorist is a subjective assessment based in part on the severity of the crimes committed, that is what you have finally admitted. Well done, now run along.

LOL, hardly.

Notice you omit the rest of the point that is in context to the discussion at hand. (Whereas I would omit your parts that were not in context to the discussion at hand).

See below.

You literally just admitted you would not call them terrorists because you don't think their violent acts are severe enough to count as terrorism. Are you going to deny it again?

I didn't omit anything, that's your tactic. You chose to quote the shorter post where I highlighted you finally admitting your mistake, rather than the one immediately before which covered everything you said. Poor fool.

[AnalHamster]

I wouldn't class violent protests as terrorism, neither does your government or law enforcement agencies. Someone screaming and shouting and even throwing eggs outside an abortion clinic is not a terrorist, whereas someone who blows the place up is a domestic terrorist. The white supremacists who they go to protest against aren't terrorists either when they attack the lefty protestors. Anyone trying to declare one group is terrorism and the others are not is showing some pretty blatant hypocrisy, no?

Why what on earth could this be? Oh wait, it's me right back on my very first post on the topic pointing out that the distinction is the severity of the criminal acts.

Breaking windows in Hong Kong by protesters = terror? Ehhh, that's a stretch.

Now, you want to say that protestors getting violent and throwing things at police is terror, well... maybe. Do rocks terrify police?

Why blow me down, here's you finally admitting the same fucking thing you big baby.

Quick, walk it back!

[Cassandros]

Breaking windows in Hong Kong by protesters = terror? Ehhh, that's a stretch.

Now, you want to say that protestors getting violent and throwing things at police is terror, well... maybe. Do rocks terrify police?

Just wanted to highlight this admission for you, it's what I've been saying and you've been denying/refusing to admit I asked for a half dozen pages now. This destroys your position dimwit. Whether a person/group is a terrorist is a subjective assessment based in part on the severity of the crimes committed, that is what you have finally admitted. Well done, now run along.

LOL, hardly.

Notice you omit the rest of the point that is in context to the discussion at hand. (Whereas I would omit your parts that were not in context to the discussion at hand).

See below.

You literally just admitted you would not call them terrorists because you don't think their violent acts are severe enough to count as terrorism. Are you going to deny it again?

I didn't omit anything, that's your tactic. You chose to quote the shorter post where I highlighted you finally admitting your mistake, rather than the one immediately before which covered everything you said. Poor fool.

I literally just admitted that I would not condemn a whole group for the actions of a few.

I would call ISIS terrorist, but not all Sunnis should get that label.

Now, are you going to show me how the Hong Kong protest are in anyway the same as the tactics employed by antifa?

Or you are going keep being a derp?

[Cassandros]

I wouldn't class violent protests as terrorism, neither does your government or law enforcement agencies. Someone screaming and shouting and even throwing eggs outside an abortion clinic is not a terrorist, whereas someone who blows the place up is a domestic terrorist. The white supremacists who they go to protest against aren't terrorists either when they attack the lefty protestors. Anyone trying to declare one group is terrorism and the others are not is showing some pretty blatant hypocrisy, no?

Why what on earth could this be? Oh wait, it's me right back on my very first post on the topic pointing out that the distinction is the severity of the criminal acts.

Breaking windows in Hong Kong by protesters = terror? Ehhh, that's a stretch.

Now, you want to say that protestors getting violent and throwing things at police is terror, well... maybe. Do rocks terrify police?

Why blow me down, here's you finally admitting the same fucking thing you big baby.

Quick, walk it back!

Pffft, hardly.

Nice attempt at twisting my words, but not really.

See above for more details.

[AnalHamster]

Breaking windows in Hong Kong by protesters = terror? Ehhh, that's a stretch.

Now, you want to say that protestors getting violent and throwing things at police is terror, well... maybe. Do rocks terrify police?

Just wanted to highlight this admission for you, it's what I've been saying and you've been denying/refusing to admit I asked for a half dozen pages now. This destroys your position dimwit. Whether a person/group is a terrorist is a subjective assessment based in part on the severity of the crimes committed, that is what you have finally admitted. Well done, now run along.

LOL, hardly.

Notice you omit the rest of the point that is in context to the discussion at hand. (Whereas I would omit your parts that were not in context to the discussion at hand).

See below.

You literally just admitted you would not call them terrorists because you don't think their violent acts are severe enough to count as terrorism. Are you going to deny it again?

I didn't omit anything, that's your tactic. You chose to quote the shorter post where I highlighted you finally admitting your mistake, rather than the one immediately before which covered everything you said. Poor fool.

I literally just admitted that I would not condemn a whole group for the actions of a few.

I would call ISIS terrorist, but not all Sunnis should get that label.

Now, are you going to show me how the Hong Kong protest are in anyway the same as the tactics employed by antifa?

Or you are going keep being a derp?

Then you can't condemn everyone who goes to an antifa protest on the actions of a few dumbass. You think everyone who goes to an antifa event is wearing a mask and intended to do criminal but not terrorist - AS YOU ADMIT NOW - acts? Nope.

Hong Kong protests aim to change the political situation and some of them are willing to use violence to do it. Perhaps you could you explain the difference other than your hypocrisy?

[AnalHamster]

I wouldn't class violent protests as terrorism, neither does your government or law enforcement agencies. Someone screaming and shouting and even throwing eggs outside an abortion clinic is not a terrorist, whereas someone who blows the place up is a domestic terrorist. The white supremacists who they go to protest against aren't terrorists either when they attack the lefty protestors. Anyone trying to declare one group is terrorism and the others are not is showing some pretty blatant hypocrisy, no?

Why what on earth could this be? Oh wait, it's me right back on my very first post on the topic pointing out that the distinction is the severity of the criminal acts.

Breaking windows in Hong Kong by protesters = terror? Ehhh, that's a stretch.

Now, you want to say that protestors getting violent and throwing things at police is terror, well... maybe. Do rocks terrify police?

Why blow me down, here's you finally admitting the same fucking thing you big baby.

Quick, walk it back!

Pffft, hardly.

Nice attempt at twisting my words, but not really.

See above for more details.

Can't even attempt to answer that one can you?
Have it again then:

I wouldn't class violent protests as terrorism, neither does your government or law enforcement agencies. Someone screaming and shouting and even throwing eggs outside an abortion clinic is not a terrorist, whereas someone who blows the place up is a domestic terrorist. The white supremacists who they go to protest against aren't terrorists either when they attack the lefty protestors. Anyone trying to declare one group is terrorism and the others are not is showing some pretty blatant hypocrisy, no?

Why what on earth could this be? Oh wait, it's me right back on my very first post on the topic pointing out that the distinction is the severity of the criminal acts.

Breaking windows in Hong Kong by protesters = terror? Ehhh, that's a stretch.

Now, you want to say that protestors getting violent and throwing things at police is terror, well... maybe. Do rocks terrify police?

Why blow me down, here's you finally admitting the same fucking thing you big baby.

Quick, walk it back!

[Cassandros]

I wouldn't class violent protests as terrorism, neither does your government or law enforcement agencies. Someone screaming and shouting and even throwing eggs outside an abortion clinic is not a terrorist, whereas someone who blows the place up is a domestic terrorist. The white supremacists who they go to protest against aren't terrorists either when they attack the lefty protestors. Anyone trying to declare one group is terrorism and the others are not is showing some pretty blatant hypocrisy, no?

Why what on earth could this be? Oh wait, it's me right back on my very first post on the topic pointing out that the distinction is the severity of the criminal acts.

Breaking windows in Hong Kong by protesters = terror? Ehhh, that's a stretch.

Now, you want to say that protestors getting violent and throwing things at police is terror, well... maybe. Do rocks terrify police?

Why blow me down, here's you finally admitting the same fucking thing you big baby.

Quick, walk it back!

Pffft, hardly.

Nice attempt at twisting my words, but not really.

See above for more details.

Can't even attempt to answer that one can you?
Have it again then:

I wouldn't class violent protests as terrorism, neither does your government or law enforcement agencies. Someone screaming and shouting and even throwing eggs outside an abortion clinic is not a terrorist, whereas someone who blows the place up is a domestic terrorist. The white supremacists who they go to protest against aren't terrorists either when they attack the lefty protestors. Anyone trying to declare one group is terrorism and the others are not is showing some pretty blatant hypocrisy, no?

Why what on earth could this be? Oh wait, it's me right back on my very first post on the topic pointing out that the distinction is the severity of the criminal acts.

Breaking windows in Hong Kong by protesters = terror? Ehhh, that's a stretch.

Now, you want to say that protestors getting violent and throwing things at police is terror, well... maybe. Do rocks terrify police?

Why blow me down, here's you finally admitting the same fucking thing you big baby.

Quick, walk it back!

You do realize you have said absolutely nothing here, right?

I mean, if talking to yourself gets you hard, have at it.

But, its kind of weird.

[Cassandros]

Breaking windows in Hong Kong by protesters = terror? Ehhh, that's a stretch.

Now, you want to say that protestors getting violent and throwing things at police is terror, well... maybe. Do rocks terrify police?

Just wanted to highlight this admission for you, it's what I've been saying and you've been denying/refusing to admit I asked for a half dozen pages now. This destroys your position dimwit. Whether a person/group is a terrorist is a subjective assessment based in part on the severity of the crimes committed, that is what you have finally admitted. Well done, now run along.

LOL, hardly.

Notice you omit the rest of the point that is in context to the discussion at hand. (Whereas I would omit your parts that were not in context to the discussion at hand).

See below.

You literally just admitted you would not call them terrorists because you don't think their violent acts are severe enough to count as terrorism. Are you going to deny it again?

I didn't omit anything, that's your tactic. You chose to quote the shorter post where I highlighted you finally admitting your mistake, rather than the one immediately before which covered everything you said. Poor fool.

I literally just admitted that I would not condemn a whole group for the actions of a few.

I would call ISIS terrorist, but not all Sunnis should get that label.

Now, are you going to show me how the Hong Kong protest are in anyway the same as the tactics employed by antifa?

Or you are going keep being a derp?

Then you can't condemn everyone who goes to an antifa protest on the actions of a few dumbass. You think everyone who goes to an antifa event is wearing a mask and intended to do criminal but not terrorist - AS YOU ADMIT NOW - acts? Nope.

Hong Kong protests aim to change the political situation and some of them are willing to use violence to do it. Perhaps you could you explain the difference other than your hypocrisy?

Is antifa a few dumbasses? Because I am not convinced.

It looks like intimidation and use of fear to coerce others is part of the antifa playbook, and they employ these tactics all the time. Especially when it comes to people trying to give speeches on topics they don't approve of.

They appear to label anyone who isn't them a 'fascist' and give themselves permission to act like a bunch of terrorist.

[AnalHamster]

You do realize you have said absolutely nothing here, right?

I mean, if talking to yourself gets you hard, have at it.

But, its kind of weird.

Actually what I said was you now agree with the post I started with, then I quoted both posts to prove it and laughed at you. But whoopsie daisy, you again failed to address it. Have it again then

I wouldn't class violent protests as terrorism, neither does your government or law enforcement agencies. Someone screaming and shouting and even throwing eggs outside an abortion clinic is not a terrorist, whereas someone who blows the place up is a domestic terrorist. The white supremacists who they go to protest against aren't terrorists either when they attack the lefty protestors. Anyone trying to declare one group is terrorism and the others are not is showing some pretty blatant hypocrisy, no?

Why what on earth could this be? Oh wait, it's me right back on my very first post on the topic pointing out that the distinction is the severity of the criminal acts.

Breaking windows in Hong Kong by protesters = terror? Ehhh, that's a stretch.

Now, you want to say that protestors getting violent and throwing things at police is terror, well... maybe. Do rocks terrify police?

Why blow me down, here's you finally admitting the same fucking thing you big baby.

Quick, walk it back!

[AnalHamster]

Here's one you'll have to pretend not to see for a dozen pages or so:

Let's say the hong kong protesters who aren't terrorists because they only 'smash windows' (and assault police and throw things) which isn't a severe enough crime for you, decide that they aren't making progress and start planting bombs too. Their aims haven't changed, just the level of crime they are willing to commit to coerce political change. Are they terrorists now? Simple yes from me, their current activities are not terrorism with their window breaking and assaulting police and throwing things, but if the same people with the same aims decide to add bombs into the mix then they absolutely are terrorists. Can you answer the simple question? Let's say within 5 pages of dodges?

[Cassandros]

Since you ignored me, let me say again:

Is antifa a few dumbasses? Because I am not convinced.

It looks like intimidation and use of fear to coerce others is part of the antifa playbook, and they employ these tactics all the time. Especially when it comes to people trying to give speeches on topics they don't approve of.

They appear to label anyone who isn't them a 'fascist' and give themselves permission to act like a bunch of terrorist.

Here's one you'll have to pretend not to see for a dozen pages or so:

Let's say the hong kong protesters who aren't terrorists because they only 'smash windows' (and assault police and throw things) which isn't a severe enough crime for you, decide that they aren't making progress and start planting bombs too. Their aims haven't changed, just the level of crime they are willing to commit to coerce political change. Are they terrorists now? Simple yes from me, their current activities are not terrorism with their window breaking and assaulting police and throwing things, but if the same people with the same aims decide to add bombs into the mix then they absolutely are terrorists. Can you answer the simple question? Let's say within 5 pages of dodges?

And let me say this even clearer:

Should any protest group start going out of their way to target people who hold different opinions to themselves, and use fear and intimidation to coerce that opposing view point into shutting up --> they get labeled a terrorist.

It is ignorant to require explosives to be the quantifier for the term.

[AnalHamster]

Since you ignored me, let me say again:

Is antifa a few dumbasses? Because I am not convinced.

It looks like intimidation and use of fear to coerce others is part of the antifa playbook, and they employ these tactics all the time. Especially when it comes to people trying to give speeches on topics they don't approve of.

They appear to label anyone who isn't them a 'fascist' and give themselves permission to act like a bunch of terrorist.

It's a diverse group with no central structure or management. If you are claiming all of them are the ones who mask up and go with the intention of committing low level crimes you now admit don't constitute terrorism, you're wrong. Many just go along for actual peaceful protesting with signs and shouting and stuff. Doesn't really matter now you admit what the worst of them do isn't terrorism though does it.

Here's one you'll have to pretend not to see for a dozen pages or so:

Let's say the hong kong protesters who aren't terrorists because they only 'smash windows' (and assault police and throw things) which isn't a severe enough crime for you, decide that they aren't making progress and start planting bombs too. Their aims haven't changed, just the level of crime they are willing to commit to coerce political change. Are they terrorists now? Simple yes from me, their current activities are not terrorism with their window breaking and assaulting police and throwing things, but if the same people with the same aims decide to add bombs into the mix then they absolutely are terrorists. Can you answer the simple question? Let's say within 5 pages of dodges?

And let me say this even clearer:

Should any protest group start going out of their way to target people who hold different opinions to themselves, and use fear and intimidation to coerce that opposing view point into shutting up --> they get labeled a terrorist.

It is ignorant to require explosives to be the quantifier for the term.

Well that's nice, but here is the question I asked you again. Do feel free to replace explosives with other terrorists acts, such as posting chemical weapons, driving cars through crowds, mass shootings etc.

Let's say the hong kong protesters who aren't terrorists because they only 'smash windows' (and assault police and throw things) which isn't a severe enough crime for you, decide that they aren't making progress and start planting bombs too. Their aims haven't changed, just the level of crime they are willing to commit to coerce political change. Are they terrorists now? Simple yes from me, their current activities are not terrorism with their window breaking and assaulting police and throwing things, but if the same people with the same aims decide to add bombs into the mix then they absolutely are terrorists. Can you answer the simple question? Let's say within 5 pages of dodges?

(Hint: the answer you are looking for is yes, escalation to bombs would mean they are terrorists, while with their current antifa style violence you just call them protesters.)

[Cassandros]

Since you ignored me, let me say again:

Is antifa a few dumbasses? Because I am not convinced.

It looks like intimidation and use of fear to coerce others is part of the antifa playbook, and they employ these tactics all the time. Especially when it comes to people trying to give speeches on topics they don't approve of.

They appear to label anyone who isn't them a 'fascist' and give themselves permission to act like a bunch of terrorist.

It's a diverse group with no central structure or management. If you are claiming all of them are the ones who mask up and go with the intention of committing low level crimes you now admit don't constitute terrorism, you're wrong. Many just go along for actual peaceful protesting with signs and shouting and stuff. Doesn't really matter now you admit what the worst of them do isn't terrorism though does it.

Your narrative is weak. As is your spin on acting like attempts to shut down opposing forms of speech is simply "low level crimes".

Protest are protest; sometimes they get violent. That is night and day different then actively trying to shut down the opposition through fear, violence, and intimidation.

Case in point, when antifa marched against the proud boys I did not consider the violence there as anything but idiocy in action. They have since crossed the line however when they are not just protesting- but going out of there way to be violent thugs using intimidation tactics to scare people away from other points of view.

In the past I would just call it 'fascist behavior' (and boy did I love the irony), but you kind of forced my hand --> so now they are terrorist.

Here's one you'll have to pretend not to see for a dozen pages or so:

Let's say the hong kong protesters who aren't terrorists because they only 'smash windows' (and assault police and throw things) which isn't a severe enough crime for you, decide that they aren't making progress and start planting bombs too. Their aims haven't changed, just the level of crime they are willing to commit to coerce political change. Are they terrorists now? Simple yes from me, their current activities are not terrorism with their window breaking and assaulting police and throwing things, but if the same people with the same aims decide to add bombs into the mix then they absolutely are terrorists. Can you answer the simple question? Let's say within 5 pages of dodges?

And let me say this even clearer:

Should any protest group start going out of their way to target people who hold different opinions to themselves, and use fear and intimidation to coerce that opposing view point into shutting up --> they get labeled a terrorist.

It is ignorant to require explosives to be the quantifier for the term.

Well that's nice, but here is the question I asked you again. Do feel free to replace explosives with other terrorists acts, such as posting chemical weapons, driving cars through crowds, mass shootings etc.

Let's say the hong kong protesters who aren't terrorists because they only 'smash windows' (and assault police and throw things) which isn't a severe enough crime for you, decide that they aren't making progress and start planting bombs too. Their aims haven't changed, just the level of crime they are willing to commit to coerce political change. Are they terrorists now? Simple yes from me, their current activities are not terrorism with their window breaking and assaulting police and throwing things, but if the same people with the same aims decide to add bombs into the mix then they absolutely are terrorists. Can you answer the simple question? Let's say within 5 pages of dodges?

(Hint: the answer you are looking for is yes, escalation to bombs would mean they are terrorists, while with their current antifa style violence you just call them protesters.)

Mowing down people with a car, spree shooting, and bombing people are all possible examples of terrorism, but not definitive examples.

As we have already established and agreed upon the definition of terrorist. To be a terrorist all you need to do is actively use fear, violence and the threat of violence, to coerce others into not doing what you don't want them to do. Like give or watch a speech. Unfortunately, antifa seems to do this on a regular basis, so... if the shoe fits, call it what it is.

It is ignorant to require "high crime" to be a quantifier. No where in the agreed upon definition of terrorist is that included.

[AnalHamster]

Since you ignored me, let me say again:

Is antifa a few dumbasses? Because I am not convinced.

It looks like intimidation and use of fear to coerce others is part of the antifa playbook, and they employ these tactics all the time. Especially when it comes to people trying to give speeches on topics they don't approve of.

They appear to label anyone who isn't them a 'fascist' and give themselves permission to act like a bunch of terrorist.

It's a diverse group with no central structure or management. If you are claiming all of them are the ones who mask up and go with the intention of committing low level crimes you now admit don't constitute terrorism, you're wrong. Many just go along for actual peaceful protesting with signs and shouting and stuff. Doesn't really matter now you admit what the worst of them do isn't terrorism though does it.

Your narrative is weak. As is your spin on acting like attempts to shut down opposing forms of speech is simply "low level crimes".

Protest are protest; sometimes they get violent. That is night and day different then actively trying to shut down the opposition through fear, violence, and intimidation.

Case in point, when antifa marched against the proud boys I did not consider the violence there as anything but idiocy in action. They have since crossed the line however when they are not just protesting- but going out of there way to be violent thugs using intimidation tactics to scare people away from other points of view.

In the past I would just call it 'fascist behavior' (and boy did I love the irony), but you kind of forced my hand --> so now they are terrorist.

Now you're even admitting you judge whether antifa are terrorists or not based on the level of violence you fucking idiot, this is the thing you are trying desperately to deny doing.

And you state you wouldn't even call them terrorists if you weren't being stubborn due to being embarrassed by my teaching you what the word fascist means, you sad little fool

Here's one you'll have to pretend not to see for a dozen pages or so:

Let's say the hong kong protesters who aren't terrorists because they only 'smash windows' (and assault police and throw things) which isn't a severe enough crime for you, decide that they aren't making progress and start planting bombs too. Their aims haven't changed, just the level of crime they are willing to commit to coerce political change. Are they terrorists now? Simple yes from me, their current activities are not terrorism with their window breaking and assaulting police and throwing things, but if the same people with the same aims decide to add bombs into the mix then they absolutely are terrorists. Can you answer the simple question? Let's say within 5 pages of dodges?

And let me say this even clearer:

Should any protest group start going out of their way to target people who hold different opinions to themselves, and use fear and intimidation to coerce that opposing view point into shutting up --> they get labeled a terrorist.

It is ignorant to require explosives to be the quantifier for the term.

Well that's nice, but here is the question I asked you again. Do feel free to replace explosives with other terrorists acts, such as posting chemical weapons, driving cars through crowds, mass shootings etc.

Let's say the hong kong protesters who aren't terrorists because they only 'smash windows' (and assault police and throw things) which isn't a severe enough crime for you, decide that they aren't making progress and start planting bombs too. Their aims haven't changed, just the level of crime they are willing to commit to coerce political change. Are they terrorists now? Simple yes from me, their current activities are not terrorism with their window breaking and assaulting police and throwing things, but if the same people with the same aims decide to add bombs into the mix then they absolutely are terrorists. Can you answer the simple question? Let's say within 5 pages of dodges?

(Hint: the answer you are looking for is yes, escalation to bombs would mean they are terrorists, while with their current antifa style violence you just call them protesters.)

Mowing down people with a car, spree shooting, and bombing people are all possible examples of terrorism, but not definitive examples.

As we have already established and agreed upon the definition of terrorist. To be a terrorist all you need to do is actively use fear, violence and the threat of violence, to coerce others into not doing what you don't want them to do. Like give or watch a speech. Unfortunately, antifa seems to do this on a regular basis, so... if the shoe fits, call it what it is.

Good so we agree all those examples would be terrorism. We agree the Hong Kong protestors are not terrorists because their criminal activities do not rise to the level of terrorism. (Antifa are not terrorists for the same reason.)

So then, let's say the hong kong protesters who aren't terrorists because they only 'smash windows' (and assault police and throw things) which isn't a severe enough crime for you, decide that they aren't making progress and start planting bombs too. Their aims haven't changed, just the level of crime they are willing to commit to coerce political change. Are they terrorists now? Simple yes from me, their current activities are not terrorism with their window breaking and assaulting police and throwing things, but if the same people with the same aims decide to add bombs into the mix then they absolutely are terrorists. Can you answer the simple question? Let's say within 5 pages of dodges?

All I'm going to do from this point is ask you this same question until you answer it. I will ignore anything you say, and repeat the question. You cannot leave the thread, you cannot answer the question. Bit of a pickle for you.