Quote from: AntiCap on August 23, 2012, 07:23:08 PM

Quote from: myrkul on August 23, 2012, 07:02:10 PM

Quote from: AntiCap on August 23, 2012, 03:02:33 PM

Yes the example is ridiculous.

Thank you, that's all we have to say.

I'm using your ridiculous ideas. You're the one who believes that I should be allowed to carry a nuke. Your ideology doesn't do anything to prevent it. It's an extreme example, but one that could happen.

How about answering the other questions, or do you admit your inconsistency and the fallacy of your system? It's a nice simple theory, that would never work in the real world.

I'm being perfectly consistent. I'll address your idiocy one statement at a time.

Quote from: AntiCap on August 23, 2012, 03:02:33 PM

Who are you to decide what use I make of my property? If it's mine I should be able to do what I please with it.

Certainly it is, and you're welcome to do whatever you want with it. Just understand that if you go onto someone else's property with a device designed to destroy it if any harm comes to you, you will not be allowed to stay. If you pull a weapon and point it at someone, don't be surprised if you get shot. And that is exactly what you are doing, arming a nuke, pointing a gun at everyone nearby, even people who don't know you're there.

Quote from: AntiCap on August 23, 2012, 03:02:33 PM

And I believe that terrorism is supposed to have an agenda, to coerce. From wikipedia Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. . Although it also says that there's no common definition exists. If I fall and break my neck, triggering the device and killing people, that's an accident. A preventable one at that, but still an accident. Not terrorism.

Your stated reason for carrying the nuke is to receive protection. You're threatening harm to everyone even remotely near you as a defense against mugging. If that isn't the "systematic use of terror", I don't know what is.

Quote from: AntiCap on August 23, 2012, 03:02:33 PM

You're not being consistent. Earlier it was fine to fire a rifle through a park, now it's not fine to wave a gun around.

Again, perfectly consistent. Firing a rifle through a public park isn't the same as waving a gun around. You specifically stated that the shooter had set up targets, and as I said, if he wanted to avoid confusion, he should inform the people in the park that he's about to do some target practice. If you want to avoid being confused with a suicide bomber, you should inform everyone that the explosive strapped to you is wired to your vitals, and nothing will happen as long as you're safe. Of course, recall what I said about lunch.

Quote from: AntiCap on August 23, 2012, 03:02:33 PM

As to having a bomb strapped to me, where's the harm? I believe that was your question in another thread too.

Oh, there's no harm to strapping a bomb to you. As I said, you're welcome to carry a nuclear device. An armed bomb is another matter. That's the equivalent of pointing a gun at every individual within range of the explosion.