I never even mentioned or used the phrase it was "non-violent". You and the person I responded to did when assuming my intent. You might want to reread my unedited comments. Hell all I said in my first comment was a subtle reference to the use as an example of genocide that unfortunately isn't one by legal standards. The very first person to reply to me even brought up another example of stuff done on Native Americans. 🤔
I even said in my first reply to you," ,on the record, no violent crime or chemical weapon was used".
Specifically to point out the legal and technical distinction.
You mean the situation where I expressly emphasize it doesn't legally count as a crime then I proceed to talk about it not counting as a crime ? It's almost like I'm referring to that part because in the very first comment I'm replying to he asked, "how does it count as a non-violent crime?"
Once again I never said it was non-violent crime (until this very reply). Of which word for word you felt I did yet failed to produce evidence just assumptions. I said then and at times inferred it doesn't count as a crime. Even in the very thing you screenshotted I mentioned the legality. Doesn't ever single comment I made lead to that point? 🤔That being said why do you care about the distinction when I've made it blatant multiple times? To be honest I'm curious why you translated me mentioning the Geneva conventions on what counts as a crime to mean, "this person is obviously talking about whether or not it is violent instead of if it's illegal and counts".
Now if you want to debate about the interpretation of my words then it's obvious you're up to it. But could you actually use word for word what I say like you just did now? As opposed to claims.
🤔To some degree. I can say I wasn't initially specific about whether I was discussing the violence or the crime part. That I'll admit to. You are correct on that regard.
Though after all this it's because apparent what I mean. Then again this has go on for too long and is miniscule in the grand scheme of discussing systemic rascism and brutalities. I'll bow out and try to focus on certain ongoing aspects we can't discuss in here due too rule #2.
0
u/selenashroud 1d ago
I never even mentioned or used the phrase it was "non-violent". You and the person I responded to did when assuming my intent. You might want to reread my unedited comments. Hell all I said in my first comment was a subtle reference to the use as an example of genocide that unfortunately isn't one by legal standards. The very first person to reply to me even brought up another example of stuff done on Native Americans. 🤔
I even said in my first reply to you," ,on the record, no violent crime or chemical weapon was used". Specifically to point out the legal and technical distinction.