>but it would mean a lot to me if you were to just consider for a moment your choice of words and what they say about your tolerance to people who hold different opinions to you.

>I'm not going to engage them because I don't think you're really interested in having an open discussion about this.

>I'm pretty confident I have absolutely no chance of changing your mind here

What's that about tolerance of other's opinions?

So far these people interfering with the airport operations have been compared to India fighting the British for independence, African Americans fighting for their civil rights and people hiding Jews from the Nazis. And you want people to take your arguments seriously?

Well, for starters, you are literally quoting me out of context. How about quoting me properly instead of making yourself look ridiculous?

> Of course, you are completely entitled to your opinions, but I'm not going to engage them because I don't think you're really interested in having an open discussion about this.

I feel like I shouldn't need to point out how this disproves your implication that I'm not tolerant of other people's opinions. But maybe I actually do. Yikes. Acknowledging that someone else holds a differing view but choosing not to engage with it is something I consider completely reasonable. Maybe you don't, and hey, that's cool! It's your opinion after all :) In case it wasn't obvious though, due to my forceful tone, I do want to state unequivocally for the record that not only do I respect that you might hold opinions that are incompatible with my own, but I also accept your conflicting opinions are 100% valid. If I then come up with rebuttals (even if they're worded as angry internet justice warrior rants), it's not because I think you're fundamentally an idiot, but because what you're saying makes me angry enough that I want to try and get you to look at things a different way. That's not intolerance. That's social discourse.

> So far these people interfering with the airport operations have been compared to India fighting the British for independence, African Americans fighting for their civil rights and people hiding Jews from the Nazis. And you want people to take your arguments seriously?

Actually, I didn't make those comparisons. So why are you making strawmans of other people's arguments and using them to discredit me?

>Because in response to a pre-planned demonstration from a group

Has anyone actually checked if extinction rebellion actually has any plans to fly drones round Heathrow? Currently we are taking a very vaguely worded article from the Economist at face value. Not to cast aspersions, but the Economist does talk a lot of bollocks sometimes.

The Economist is one of the most serious source in the business.

And yes, this is factual and does not come from the Economist: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48470623

This is absurd moral grandstanding; you took three paragraphs to say "my opinions > your opinions." If you're going to do this at least don't try and pretend to be following the HN guidelines.

I respect people with different opinions. I do not respect people who try to impose their opinions through criminal and reckless actions.

By the way, I have not likened their actions to the IRA's, the article does that based on fact. That's obviously a very disturbing and inconvenient fact to you but that's a fact nonetheless.

Again, what they are doing is not civil disobedience and has no place in a democratic country.

Please don't post unsubstantive comments here, let alone Godwinesque ones.