No, I do not know. There was no “bad faith acting” above. Someone said property damage is not violence, I asked for evidence, none was provided, someone else jumped in to argue a bunch of stuff unrelated to the question but later admitted it was indeed violence, and by extension terrorism. What part of that do you consider “bad faith acting”?
The other user elaborated to you on the importance of context. They challenged the definitions of violence. You basically responded “I was right” with very simple ideas. They didn’t admit anything later, because their position remained the same throughout. You saying otherwise is the bad faith part. It is okay if you don’t understand the complexities, but it is bad faith to misrepresent that other user.
The other user elaborated to you on the importance of context
Which was unnecessary and irrelevant because the context was already established. That’s called “derailing the conversation”.
They challenged the definitions of violence.
No they didn’t, they plainly agreed.
They didn’t admit anything later, because their position remained the same throughout.
It clearly did not. They said that violence did not include property damage, then later admitted that it did. I don’t know how you can claim they “challenged the definition of violence” without disagreeing that property damage is violence.
Based on what, exactly?
Based on your bad faith acting.
No, I do not know. There was no “bad faith acting” above. Someone said property damage is not violence, I asked for evidence, none was provided, someone else jumped in to argue a bunch of stuff unrelated to the question but later admitted it was indeed violence, and by extension terrorism. What part of that do you consider “bad faith acting”?
The other user elaborated to you on the importance of context. They challenged the definitions of violence. You basically responded “I was right” with very simple ideas. They didn’t admit anything later, because their position remained the same throughout. You saying otherwise is the bad faith part. It is okay if you don’t understand the complexities, but it is bad faith to misrepresent that other user.
Which was unnecessary and irrelevant because the context was already established. That’s called “derailing the conversation”.
No they didn’t, they plainly agreed.
It clearly did not. They said that violence did not include property damage, then later admitted that it did. I don’t know how you can claim they “challenged the definition of violence” without disagreeing that property damage is violence.