You still burned a fucking house down. That is the headline. “Local dipshit tries to light candle” is not. If someone says after that, “You burned my house down!” the answer isn’t, “I was just lighting a candle!” The appropriate response is, “I did, and I understand why I can’t stay in the same hostel as you now.”
Anyway, I think that analogy is pretty poor when it comes to either of these ideologies. It’s less “I was just trying to light a candle uwu” and more, “All I did was dig a trench around the house, fill it with gasoline and set it on fire. I was trying to establish a firewall, how was I supposed to know the flames engulfing the house would be a problem? And now all my neighbours are angry at me because their houses burned down, and I’m just not responsible for that!”
I don’t know there buddy, I think you could’ve asked literally anyone who knows anything about fire how well that would go, but you clearly didn’t care enough to figure it out. Either way, that’s arson, either deliberate or through reckless indifference, you burned a fucking neighbourhood down.
And now there are apologists running around saying, “But it kept burglars away, and nobody inside the house suffered from hypothermia! This person was a hero, how dare you call them an arsonist!”
I think it’s important to understand the distinction between a faux-leftist and a faux-libertarian, and an explicit fascist for that matter. I’m not saying we should throw the information out, I’m saying it matters whether we accept that they actually are libertarian or leftist.
Also what people are “allowed” to do doesn’t seem like it’s relevant to any of this, but if you see your neighbour digging a gasoline trench you should probably stop them.
Please dont redefine words to fit your argument
As long as you don’t bother to make an argument I’d say I’m doing better.
Arguing that intention is not the same as result?
If you accidentally burn a house while trying to light a candle, your intention was to light a candle, not to burn a house
If you shouldnt be allowed to light candles because you will burn more houses is a completely different argument
You still burned a fucking house down. That is the headline. “Local dipshit tries to light candle” is not. If someone says after that, “You burned my house down!” the answer isn’t, “I was just lighting a candle!” The appropriate response is, “I did, and I understand why I can’t stay in the same hostel as you now.”
Anyway, I think that analogy is pretty poor when it comes to either of these ideologies. It’s less “I was just trying to light a candle uwu” and more, “All I did was dig a trench around the house, fill it with gasoline and set it on fire. I was trying to establish a firewall, how was I supposed to know the flames engulfing the house would be a problem? And now all my neighbours are angry at me because their houses burned down, and I’m just not responsible for that!”
I don’t know there buddy, I think you could’ve asked literally anyone who knows anything about fire how well that would go, but you clearly didn’t care enough to figure it out. Either way, that’s arson, either deliberate or through reckless indifference, you burned a fucking neighbourhood down.
And now there are apologists running around saying, “But it kept burglars away, and nobody inside the house suffered from hypothermia! This person was a hero, how dare you call them an arsonist!”
I think it’s important to understand the distinction between a faux-leftist and a faux-libertarian, and an explicit fascist for that matter. I’m not saying we should throw the information out, I’m saying it matters whether we accept that they actually are libertarian or leftist.
Also what people are “allowed” to do doesn’t seem like it’s relevant to any of this, but if you see your neighbour digging a gasoline trench you should probably stop them.