Well, by definition its certainly historical. So I guess I can't see why you'd event bring that up. Its a rare moment in history. What else makes something historical? Also, how do you feel that exactly adds fire to your position? What a joke.

Look at the categorical error. You're pushing historicism. That is different than a moment in time being a historical moment. I'd claim you're beng disingenuous, but I actually think that you're stupid and dont realize how much of a pawn you really are.

So next, the end IS conditional on selfish moronic behavior. On both parts of the equation. Its on their part because destroying shit accomplishes nothing and is a selfish act in itself. You're moronic for just spending all your time denying literally any credibility to the opposing side. There's almost NO way you can sate this issue by ignoring it completely and trying to rob even the most peaceful of protestors of their point.

One side is looting. The other side is not looting. You're claiming now both sides have responsibility for the looting. That's y9our magical thinking that I'm talking about that removes responsibility.

But holy fuck, no. All of this is just your really bad projection. You even couldn't help but use shitty cloudy words like implying, MULTIPLE times. "In other words?" No. Use MY words. Not your ridiculous stretching and fabricating.

Your words have a logical implication. That's what "in other words" means in this context. You can deny it all you want, but it's the logical conclusion and it is what you're saying regardless of whether or not you admit it. It doesn't matter if you're too dumb to see that.