Kaelik wrote:Because Tzor doesn't agree with us.
Us who? Looks like you're taking positions opposite him solely to be antagonistic.
Kaelik wrote:Tzor believes that it's perfectly acceptable to advocate that others commit arson, perfectly acceptable to commit arson,
err, source? All I see is this:
Tzor wrote:Guyr, that's definitely crap, but who is to blame here, the idiot of the right-wing radio host, the idiot who started the first (and only fire) that might have actually been an accident
I don't see a defense of arson anywhere. I also don't see a defense of the radio host anywhere. Calling them crappy and idiots is pretty far from "perfectly acceptable". I guess you can complain that he questions whether it was arson at all, but that's actually undermining his main point so I'm not sure why you would.
Kaelik wrote:but not acceptable for government officials to clear up a demonstrated fire hazard.
Uh, no.
Guyr Adamantine wrote:Then guess what, the city administration decided that such an installation was was too dangerous, and took away their power generator. (The fire couldn't have been electrical, and started outside the tent, so they just needed an incentive, I guess)
One week later, police came and took all the wood and matches.
Two weeks laters it was the tents. They're inflammable, you see!
Did I mention all this happened mid-December? In FUCKING CANADA?
That doesn't seem to be a description of "clearing up a demonstrated fire hazard." Do you think that was a reasonable and necessary police action? If so, why are you arguing with Tzor? Guyr's the one who implied that it wasn't. If not, why are you arguing with Tzor? He is also condemning it.
Kaelik wrote:He lives in a backwards shithole
Yeah, I don't like New York either.
Kaelik wrote:where arson is not a blameworthy activity.
again, source?
Kaelik wrote:And no, I'm not trying to convince Tzor, I am making Tzor look like the psychopath he is so that well meaning idiots, like for example, you, will realize that the bad guys in this story are the people who committed crimes, and not the people who cleared out a fire hazard.
Then you're doing a really bad job of it.
Apparently, he's a psychopath because he thinks it's bad to take tents, power, and fire from protesters in the middle of the Canadian winter, where you're a moderate for believing same is just "clearing out a fire hazard."
Kaelik wrote:Though it is quite possible that they were not violating any fire codes, and it is possible that the officials were acting outside the scope of their discretion or for impure motives, even still they would be less blameworthy than an arsonist and someone who encourages arson.
Really. So this bile comes from disagreeing over which of two bad things is worse? Bear in mind that on one side is saying mean things and destroying property, and on the other is exposing several hundred people to winter without proper shelter, and you're the one saying arson is worse.